Ann Marie N. v. City and County of San Francisco
Court of Appeal of California
2001 WL 1261958 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Ann Marie N. (plaintiff) filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco (the city) (defendant) after discovering that Mathew N., the child she had adopted through the city’s department of social services, was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Mathew’s natural mother routinely used cocaine and alcohol and engaged in prostitution. After his mother’s custody and parental rights were terminated, Mathew was placed with Ann Marie, who was aware that Mathew had been exposed to cocaine and alcohol during birth. Shortly after the placement, Ann Marie took Mathew to a pediatrician, who did not test Mathew for HIV but would have done so if Ann Marie had known that Mathew’s mother was engaged in conduct that might have exposed her to HIV. Six years later, a social worker for the city informed Ann Marie that Mathew’s birth mother had died of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Mathew subsequently tested positive for HIV. At trial, Ann Marie alleged that the city was liable for negligence in breaching a duty owed to Ann Marie as a prospective parent to identify and test children at high risk for exposure to HIV and convey the results to prospective parents. Ann Marie also claimed the city had intentionally misrepresented Mathew’s health, as Mathew was in fact infected with HIV. Finally, Ann Marie alleged that the city had knowledge of Mathew’s medical condition and intentionally concealed the condition. The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims for negligence and intentional misrepresentation. During a hearing on the intentional-concealment claim, a social worker for the city testified to being aware that Mathew’s natural mother had engaged in behavior that could have exposed her to HIV. The trial court granted the city’s motion for nonsuit. Ann Marie appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.