Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 April 1989 |
Docket Number | No. S003030,S003030 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 770 P.2d 278 MARLENE F. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AFFILIATED PSYCHIATRIC MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. CHERYL G. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AFFILIATED PSYCHIATRIC MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Russell S. Kussman, Kussman & Whitehill, Steven B. Stevens and Gage, Mazursky, Schwartz, Angelo & Kussman, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.
John G. Kerr, Haberfeld & Perlberger, Pasadena, Philip Hunter Thompson, Nelsen, Tang, Thompson, Pegue & Thornton, Los Angeles, John C. Kelly, Baker, Silberberg & Kenner, Marshall Silberberg, Santa Monica, R. Jeff Carlisle, Lynberg & Nelsen, David W. Groundwater and Kirtland & Packard, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.
Can the mother of a minor child state a claim for the negligent infliction of emotional distress against the psychotherapist who, consulted to treat both mother and son, sexually molested the boy? As, in the circumstances of this case, the therapist's conduct breached a duty of care owed her as well as her child, we hold she can.
In the summer of 1980, the mothers of minor children Robert F., Phillip G., and Eric R. brought their sons to the Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., to obtain counseling for family emotional problems. The clinic assigned all three children to one of its employees, the same psychologist in each case, who began treating the mothers as well because he believed each child's psychological problems arose in part from difficulties in the relationship between mother and son.
In the spring of 1982, the boys' mothers discovered that the therapist had sexually molested their sons by fondling the boys' genitals and that he had engaged in other lewd conduct with the children. Each child was molested at the clinic offices, and Robert was also molested elsewhere.
The mothers confronted the owner and the clinical director of the clinic with this information. They were told that the therapist had done nothing "illegal" but that he would no longer be assigned minor patients. The therapist later wrote a letter of "explanation" to the parents, in which he stated he would no longer treat minor patients and would himself undergo psychotherapy.
The mothers of Robert and Phillip brought suit against the clinic, its owner, its clinical director, and the treating therapist for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the molestation of their sons had caused them serious mental and emotional suffering and further disruption of their family relationships. 2 The cause of action pled by Robert's mother, identical in all substantive respects to that of Phillip's mother, is set forth here verbatim, as the scope of the allegations is critical to our review of the matter.
All defendants successfully demurred to this cause of action. The Court of Appeal affirmed, acknowledging that the mothers had suffered from the mistreatment of their children but reasoning that they failed to state a claim under either the "bystander witness" theory of Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912 or the "direct victim" theory of Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813, because they were neither present at the time the torts were committed nor the actual targets of the therapist's unprofessional conduct. We granted review to determine whether the mothers of Robert and Phillip, although neither bystander witnesses nor the immediate objects of the tortious conduct, could state claims for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. 3
"[T]he negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence...." (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 838, p. 195.) (Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1249, 209 Cal.Rptr. 189.)
In Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, we held that a mother could recover from a negligent motorist for the emotional distress she suffered from witnessing the accident that caused the death of her child. Recognizing that foreseeability of the injury was but the threshold element in determining the existence of a duty of care, we identified a number of factors designed to limit the scope of the duty to "exclud[e] the remote and unexpected" and to specify the class of potential plaintiffs entitled to recover for the emotional distress occasioned by witnessing the injury of another. (Id. at pp. 740-741, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912.)
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 27 Cal.3d 916, 167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813, we held that a husband could recover from his wife's doctor for the emotional distress he suffered from the misdiagnosis of his wife as having syphilis and the advice that he be physically examined as well. Reasoning that the husband was a "direct victim" of the tort in view of the nature of the doctor's conduct, we held that defendants owed him a duty of care. 4 (Id. at p. 923, 167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813.)
As in Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, we stressed certain inherently limiting factors, in particular that the doctor instructed the wife to tell her husband of the diagnosis and to advise him to be examined as well, and that the doctor's error...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Nat'l Maint., Inc. v. San Diego Convention Ctr. Corp.
...to be decided by the Court. Jacobsen v. Marin Gen. Hosp., 192 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal.3d 583, 588-590 (1989)). Submitting the case to the jury in the absence of a legal duty is prejudicial legal error because "[w]i......
-
People v. Montiel
...damages as "bystander"] ).These limitations apply in sexual assault cases. In Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278 ( Marlene F. ), for example, the Supreme Court considered whether two mothers could recover emotional ......
-
Blanco v. Cnty. of Kings
...Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 863 P.2d 795 (1993). The existence of a duty is a question of law. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc ., 48 Cal.3d 583, 588, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278 (1989). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants owed to her a "duty of due care," but does not specify......
-
John Fremont STEEL IV v. CITY of SAN DIEGO
...not considered an independent tort, but rather is derived from the tort of negligence. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal.3d 583, 588, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278 (1989). Thus, all of the same elements of a negligence cause of action must be established in ......
-
Emotional distress
...of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d 583, 588, 257 Cal. Rptr. 98 (1989). Thus, all of the basic elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation and damage) apply and must be proven......
-
Related State Torts
...separate and apart from a negligence claim. See e.g., Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. , 770 P.2d 278, 281, 257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 101, 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 (Cal. 1989)(“‘[T]he negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence. …......
-
Negligence
...molested the minor son of a patient had a duty to the patient/mother. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 583, 590-592, 257 Cal. Rptr. 98. A therapist who knew that a mother was taking a minor patient out of the country without the father’s knowledge ......