Cramer v. Slater

146 Idaho 868 (2009)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cramer v. Slater

Idaho Supreme Court
146 Idaho 868 (2009)

Facts

Rebecca Cramer (plaintiff) and her husband, Curt Cramer, took blood tests in preparation for an in vitro fertilization procedure at the Idaho Center for Reproductive Medicine (ICRM) (defendant), which employed Dr. Cristin Slater and nurse K. C. Crowley (defendants). Both Rebecca and Curt were informed that their tests were negative for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). However, Curt’s tests actually showed that he was positive for HIV. Over one year later, Curt took a blood test in connection with his application for life insurance. Curt’s regular physician, Dr. Joel Swanson (defendant), informed Curt that he was HIV positive. Dr. Swanson gave Curt a second HIV test and let him know that a negative result would be returned in a couple of days, but a positive result would take longer. When Curt called Dr. Swanson’s office three days after the second test and learned that the test results had not come in, Curt committed suicide. Rebecca brought a suit for Curt’s wrongful death and negligent infliction of severe emotional distress against Swanson, ICRM, Slater, Crowley, Interpath Laboratory, Inc. (Interpath) (defendant), and various other defendants who were later dismissed by agreement of the parties. ICRM, Slater, and Crowley moved for summary judgment, arguing that their negligence in failing to inform Curt that he had HIV was not the proximate cause of his death. Rebecca opposed, arguing that if ICRM, Slater, and Crowley had properly informed Curt so that he could have received medical and psychiatric treatment, he would not have been subjected to the allegedly negligent manner in which Swanson informed him later. Rebecca presented evidence that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person would contemplate committing suicide after learning of a positive HIV diagnosis. A district court dismissed the wrongful-death action on summary judgment against all defendants except Swanson, holding that the negligent conduct of ICRM, Slater, and Crowley was not the proximate cause of Curt’s death and that their liability was cut off by the superseding act of Curt’s suicide. After a trial, a jury found in Rebecca’s favor on the negligence claim. Rebecca moved unsuccessfully for a new trial and appealed on various grounds, including the district court’s grant of summary judgment to ICRM, Slater, and Crowley.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership