College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
8 Cal. 4th 704, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d, 882 P.2d 894 (1994)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Laura and Richard Crowell (plaintiffs) were married. Laura suffered from agoraphobia and other panic disorders. Laura sought treatment from College Hospital, Inc. (Hospital) (defendant). Laura met Hospital employee Robert Berry during her treatment and became involved in an extramarital affair with him. Laura claimed both that Berry manipulated her and that the Hospital’s therapists encouraged the relationship. Berry eventually ended the affair. Laura suffered a breakdown and was admitted to a different psychiatric institution. Laura and Richard sued the Hospital. In the complaint, Laura alleged that the Hospital knew about: (1) a prior relationship between Berry and another patient and (2) the relationship between Berry and Laura. The complaint also alleged that the Hospital did not warn Laura about Berry’s propensity for relationships with patients. The Crowells filed a motion to amend their complaint to state a punitive-damages claim. The proposed amended complaint did not contain any additional facts, but it did include a declaration from Laura swearing to the same facts that were in the original complaint. The trial court granted the motion to amend. The Hospital appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed. The Hospital then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baxter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.