Gregory v. Cott

Supreme Court of California · 2014 · Torts

TortsPrimary assumption of riskCaregiver liabilityprimary assumption of riskfirefighter's ruleoccupational hazardsAlzheimer's diseasehome health care worker

Facts

Bernard Cott hired a home health care agency to provide assistance for his wife Lorraine, who had long suffered from Alzheimer's disease. The agency assigned Carolyn Gregory, a trained caregiver who knew Alzheimer's patients could be violent, and Bernard specifically warned her that Lorraine was combative and might bite, kick, scratch, and flail. Gregory's duties included supervising, bathing, dressing, transporting Lorraine, and some housekeeping. While Gregory was washing dishes, Lorraine approached from behind and reached toward the sink; Gregory tried to restrain her, dropped a large knife, and injured her wrist.

Issue

Does the primary assumption of risk doctrine bar a negligence, premises liability, and battery action by a professional in-home caregiver employed through an agency when she is injured by conduct stemming from the Alzheimer's patient's disease? More specifically, does the no-duty rule applicable to institutional caregivers also apply to similarly hired caregivers working in private homes?

Rule

A person who hires a worker to confront or manage a hazardous condition owes no duty to protect that worker from the very risks inherent in the condition the worker was retained to confront. That rule applies to professional home health care workers who are trained and employed by an agency to care for Alzheimer's patients in private homes. The doctrine does not bar liability when the caregiver is not warned of a known risk, when the defendant increases the risk beyond what is inherent in providing care, or when the injury is caused by something unrelated to the symptoms of the disease.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Maya Torres works for Golden Elm Home Care, an agency that sends trained aides to clients’ homes. The agency assigns her to supervise and bathe Owen Pike, who has advanced Alzheimer’s disease, and Owen’s daughter warns Maya that he sometimes scratches and kicks during care. While Maya is helping Owen change clothes, he suddenly flails and fractures her wrist.

If Maya sues Owen and his daughter for negligence, what is the strongest argument for the defendants?

Explanation. The majority held that professional home health care workers who are trained and employed by an agency to care for Alzheimer’s patients in private homes cannot recover for injuries caused by risks inherent in that caregiving relationship. Violent or combative behavior symptomatic of Alzheimer’s is such an inherent risk. The doctrine operates as a no-duty rule, not as a written waiver or a categorical immunity for disabled persons.