Reisner v. Regents of University of California
California Court of Appeals
31 Cal. App. 4th 1195 (1995)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
In April 1985, 12-year-old Jennifer Lawson received a blood transfusion as part of a surgery performed by Dr. Eric Fonklesrud (defendant) at the UCLA Medical Center (UCLA) (defendant). The next day, Fonklesrud and UCLA learned that the blood given to Lawson was contaminated with HIV. Neither Fonklesrud or UCLA informed Lawson or her parents about the HIV contamination or about the possibility that Lawson might develop AIDS as a result. Further, Fonklesrud and UCLA did not counsel Lawson or her parents on precautionary measures to prevent the spread of HIV. Three years later, Lawson began a sexual relationship with Daniel Reisner (plaintiff). In March 1990, Lawson was diagnosed with AIDS, and it was determined that Lawson had become infected as a result of the 1985 blood transfusion. Lawson and her parents immediately told Reisner. Reisner subsequently tested positive for HIV. Reisner sued Fonklesrud and UCLA. The court granted the defendants’ motion for a judgment on the pleadings and ruled for the defendants on the ground that Fonklesrud and UCLA owed no duty to Reisner, an unidentifiable third party. Reisner appealed, arguing that even though he an unidentifiable third party, Fonklesrud and UCLA had had a duty to warn Lawson and her parents, who were likely to apprise others of the danger.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vogel, J.)
What to do next…
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.
