Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
Encyclopedia
Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916
(1980), was a case
decided by the Supreme Court of California
that first recognized that a "direct victim" of negligence
can recover damages for emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury.
. The doctor encouraged the patient to disclose the illness to her husband, and the husband suffered emotional distress as a result.
need not be fulfilled.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1980), was a case
Legal case
A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal...
decided by the Supreme Court of California
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
that first recognized that a "direct victim" of negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
can recover damages for emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury.
Factual background
A doctor employed by the defendant hospital incorrectly diagnosed a patient as having syphilisSyphilis
Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection caused by the spirochete bacterium Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum. The primary route of transmission is through sexual contact; however, it may also be transmitted from mother to fetus during pregnancy or at birth, resulting in congenital syphilis...
. The doctor encouraged the patient to disclose the illness to her husband, and the husband suffered emotional distress as a result.
Decision
The court ruled that the risk of harm to the husband of the patient from a misdiagnosis was reasonably foreseeable, and that the tortious conduct was directed at the patient and her husband. As a "direct victim," the strict criteria for negligent infliction of emotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distress
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing...
need not be fulfilled.