Opinion ID: 1281541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Connection Between Defendants' Conduct and Nally's Suicide and the Foreseeability of Harm

Text: Other factors to consider in determining whether to impose a duty of care on defendants include the closeness of the causal connection between defendants' conduct and the injury suffered, and the foreseeability of the particular harm to the injured party. ( Rowland, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 113; see Davidson, supra, 32 Cal.3d 197, 209.) Plaintiffs argue that Nally's statement to Pastors Rea and MacArthur (while he was recovering from his suicide attempt at the hospital), that he was sorry he wasn't successful and that he would attempt suicide after his release from the hospital, were hidden dangers that would have affected his prognosis and treatment. Accordingly, plaintiffs reason that Rea and MacArthur should have warned the hospital staff and plaintiffs that Nally was still contemplating suicide after his initial attempt. We disagree. The closeness of connection between defendants conduct and Nally's suicide was tenuous at best. [7] As defendants observe, Nally was examined by five physicians and a psychiatrist during the weeks following his suicide attempt. Defendants correctly assert that they arranged or encouraged many of these visits and encouraged Nally to continue to cooperate with all doctors. (See United States Liab. Ins. Co., supra, 1 Cal.3d 586, 594.) In addition, as stated above, following Nally's overdose attempt Dr. Evelyn warned plaintiffs that Nally remained suicidal and that they should encourage him to see a psychiatrist on his release from the hospital. Plaintiffs also rejected both Dr. Hall's and Dr. Parker's suggestion that Nally be institutionalized because, according to plaintiffs, their son was not crazy. Nevertheless, we are urged that mere knowledge on the part of the defendants that Nally may have been suicidal at various stages in his life should give rise to a duty to refer. Imposition of a duty to refer Nally necessarily would imply a general duty on all nontherapists to refer all potentially suicidal persons to licensed medical practitioners. One can argue that it is foreseeable that if a nontherapist counselor fails to refer a potentially suicidal individual to professional, licensed therapeutic care, the individual may commit suicide. While under some circumstances counselors may conclude that referring a client to a psychiatrist is prudent and necessary, our past decisions teach that it is inappropriate to impose a duty to refer  which may stifle all gratuitous or religious counseling  based on foreseeability alone. (6) Mere foreseeability of the harm or knowledge of the danger, is insufficient to create a legally cognizable special relationship giving rise to a legal duty to prevent harm. (See Davidson, supra, 32 Cal.3d 197, 209.)