Reisner v. Regents of the University of California

California Court of Appeal · Torts

TortsDutyNegligencePhysician liabilityThird-party dutyFailure to warnCommunicable diseaseTarasoff

Facts

During surgery at UCLA in 1985, 12-year-old Jennifer Lawson received blood contaminated with HIV antibodies. Dr. Fonklesrud and UCLA learned of the contamination the next day but did not tell Jennifer or her parents during the next five years of treatment, and did not warn them of the risk of AIDS, contagion, or precautions to protect others. About three years later Jennifer began dating Daniel Reisner, and they became intimate while she remained unaware of her exposure. In 1990 Jennifer was diagnosed with AIDS, she and her parents immediately told Daniel, and shortly after Jennifer died Daniel learned he was HIV positive.

Issue

Whether a physician and hospital who know a patient has been exposed to a communicable disease owe a duty to an unknown and unidentifiable third person who is later infected by the patient, where the defendants allegedly failed to warn the patient or her parents of the risk and necessary precautions. More specifically, does the duty recognized in cases like Tarasoff and Myers extend beyond identifiable victims to foreseeable but unidentified third persons?

Rule

When avoidance of foreseeable harm to a third person requires a defendant who has a special relationship with another person, such as physician and patient, to control that person's conduct or warn that person of risks involved in certain conduct, the defendant's duty extends to third persons even without a special relationship to them. In the communicable-disease context, that duty is satisfied by warning the patient or others likely to apprise the victim and advising how to prevent spread; liability is not conditioned on the third person's being known or readily identifiable.

🔒

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, Dr. Lena Barlow learned that her teenage patient, Maya Ortiz, had been exposed to a communicable sexually transmitted infection through a contaminated medical instrument at a prior clinic. Dr. Barlow continued treating Maya for years but never told Maya or her parents about the exposure, never warned of transmission risk, and never advised precautions. Two years later, Maya unknowingly infected her boyfriend, Evan Cole.

If Evan sues Dr. Barlow for negligence, what is the strongest argument that Dr. Barlow owed him a duty?

Explanation. The majority held that when a physician has a special relationship with a patient and foreseeable harm to third persons can be avoided by warning the patient or others likely to apprise the victim, the duty extends to foreseeable third persons even if they are unknown or not readily identifiable. The duty here would rest on the reasonableness of warning Maya or her parents, not on any requirement that Evan be personally identified in advance. (Derived from Reisner v. Regents of the University of California (n.d.).)