Plaintiff, a nurse and friend of Robin Reda, was in close contact with Reda before and during Reda's hospitalization for meningitis. Plaintiff alleged that after telling Dr. Shimm and later Dr. Tanowitz that she had been in close contact with Reda, each doctor told her that she did not need treatment. Several days later plaintiff became ill, was diagnosed with the same type of meningitis as Reda, and suffered lasting hearing loss and tinnitus. Plaintiff sued, claiming the doctors negligently failed to provide treatment that would have immunized her from the disease.
Issue
Did Drs. Shimm and Tanowitz, who were treating Reda, owe a duty of care to plaintiff, a nonpatient friend who allegedly asked them whether she needed treatment after exposure to Reda's meningitis? More specifically, could the doctors' duty to their patient extend to plaintiff under these circumstances?
Rule
Generally, a doctor owes a duty of care only to his or her patient. A duty may extend to a nonpatient only in limited circumstances where the nonpatient has a special relationship with the physician or patient and the nonpatient's injury arises from the physician's performance of the duty owed to the patient, meaning the injury must result from the doctor's treatment of the patient.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Cleveland, Dr. Nisha Patel treated six-year-old Owen Marsh with a live-virus skin therapy that foreseeably shed for several days. Owen's father, Daniel Marsh, who handled Owen's bathing and dressing, asked Dr. Patel whether he needed any precautions, and she said none were necessary. Daniel later contracted the virus from caring for Owen.
Daniel sues Dr. Patel for negligence. What is the strongest basis for finding a duty?
Explanation. A physician generally owes a duty only to the patient. The majority recognized only limited extension to a nonpatient when a special relationship exists and the nonpatient's injury arises from the physician's treatment of the patient. Here, Daniel's infection resulted from the treatment administered to Owen, and Daniel is an identified caretaker relying on advice tied to pediatric-type services. Foreseeability alone is insufficient, a brief conversation does not automatically create a doctor-patient relationship, and communicable disease does not itself create a broad common-law duty. (Derived from McNulty v. City of New York (n.d.).)