Gregory v. Cott

Supreme Court of California · 2014 · Torts

331 P.3d 179 (Cal. 2014)

Updated July 31, 2026

tortsprimary assumption of riskcaregiver injuryAlzheimer's diseasedutyno dutyoccupational hazardsfirefighter's rule

Facts

Bernard Cott hired a home health care agency to provide assistance for his wife Lorraine, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, and the agency assigned Carolyn Gregory to work in the Cotts’ home. Gregory was trained to care for Alzheimer’s patients, knew such patients could be violent, and Bernard warned her that Lorraine was combative and might bite, kick, scratch, or flail. Gregory’s duties included supervising, bathing, dressing, transporting, and constantly monitoring Lorraine, along with some housekeeping. While Gregory was washing dishes, Lorraine approached from behind and reached toward the sink; Gregory dropped a large knife while trying to restrain her, injuring her wrist.

Issue

Does an Alzheimer’s patient, or the patient’s family, owe a duty in tort to an in-home caregiver hired through an agency when the caregiver is injured by conduct that is an inherent risk of caring for the patient? More specifically, does primary assumption of risk bar negligence, premises liability, and battery claims arising from such an injury?

Rule

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a defendant owes no duty to protect a worker from the very risks the worker was hired to confront. That rule applies to trained, agency-employed in-home caregivers for Alzheimer’s patients when the injury arises from combative or violent behavior that is an inherent symptom-related risk of providing such care. The rule does not bar liability where the caregiver is not warned of a known risk, where defendants increase the risk beyond that inherent in providing care, or where the injury is caused by something unrelated to the disease symptoms.

🔒

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, Eli Navarro contracted with Golden Terrace Home Care, a private agency, to send a trained aide to help his mother, Rosa, who had advanced dementia marked by agitation and striking. The agency assigned Maya Singh, who had previously cared for dementia patients and was told Rosa sometimes kicked and scratched during dressing. While Maya was helping Rosa change clothes, Rosa suddenly flailed and fractured Maya’s finger.

If Maya sues Rosa and Eli for negligence, what is the most likely result?

Explanation. The majority held that primary assumption of risk bars tort claims by trained, agency-employed in-home caregivers when they are injured by combative or violent behavior inherent in caring for an Alzheimer’s-type condition. The key inquiry is duty: defendants owe no duty to protect the worker from the very hazard the worker was hired to confront. Because Maya was hired through an agency to manage Rosa’s condition and was injured by that inherent symptom-related risk, the claim is barred.