Derrick

Defendant Ontario Community Hospital (“Hospital”) demurred generally to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. The trial court sustained Hospital’s demurrer without leave to amend and rendered judgment dismissing the action as to Hospital. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal.

Also named as defendants in the action and those as to whom the action is still pending are Dawn Marie Heneman (“Dawn”), a minor, her mother Carol Heneman, Dr. Simon Klitenic, Dawn’s attending physician, and a number of fictitiously named defendants.

The issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs have or could by amendment state a cause of action against Hospital. For purposes of appeal we must accept the allegations of the first amended complaint as true. (Garrett v. Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 9 Cal.3d 731, 734 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 845 , 511 P.2d 1197 ]; Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 2 Cal.3d 493, 496 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 468 P.2d 216 ]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) p. 2413.)

Before turning to the substance of the allegations of the first amended complaint, it is necessary to point out three peculiarities, all of which cause the pleading to be ambiguous and uncertain.…