Pust

Smith v. Pust

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 4th 263·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1003·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364·93 Daily Journal DAR 12703·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7481
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 5, 1993G012429California4,276 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

MaryBeth Smith had a brief sexual encounter with her therapist which destroyed her marriage to Cain Smith. The offended husband sued the therapist and the therapist’s employer. California abolished the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation (a euphemism for a third party’s sexual intercourse with an adulterous spouse) more than 50 years ago, so the complaint was framed as a medical malpractice action. However, after the husband’s deposition established that Cain Smith was not the therapist’s patient, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants.

We affirm. The substance of the lawsuit is one for criminal conversation and alienation of affection, and the facts of this case cannot be shoehorned into causes of action for medical malpractice, negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I

Cain Smith’s deposition revealed that a church pastor referred his wife MaryBeth to defendant Earl Henslin of Harbor Family Practice for counseling concerning “repressed memories” arising out of childhood sexual abuse. Cain stated this counseling was “for herself.”

Dr. Henslin, however, was “very busy,” and he referred her to his associate,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.