Myers

Myers v. Quesenberry

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 3d 888·193 Cal. Rptr. 733·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1880
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 1983Civ. No. 26873California2,693 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wiener, J.

*890 Opinion

The question presented in this case is whether liability may be imposed against two physicians for negligently failing to warn their patient of the foreseeable and dangerous consequences of engaging in certain conduct which proximately caused injuries to plaintiff, a third person.

Lexandria Anne Hansen lost control of her car and struck James A. Myers. Myers sued Hansen’s doctors, William O. Quesenberry and Michael J. Beaumont, for negligently failing to prevent Hansen from driving. The doctors’ demurrer to Myers’ first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. 1 We conclude that ruling was correct to the extent Myers based his action on the doctors’ alleged failure to control Hansen’s conduct. However, we hold Myers’ complaint states an action against the doctors for negligently failing to warn Hansen against driving in an uncontrolled diabetic condition complicated by a missed abortion. 2 Therefore, we reverse the judgment of dismissal entered on the order sustaining the doctors’ demurrer.

Facts and Allegations

The discussion which follows assumes the truth of the factual allegations of Myers’ complaint. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,…

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.