## Facts

- In April 1985, 12-year-old Jennifer Lawson underwent surgery at UCLA Medical Center performed by Dr. Eric Fonklesrud and received blood and plasma transfusions.
- The day after the transfusion, UCLA and Dr. Fonklesrud learned the blood was contaminated with HIV antibodies.
- Neither UCLA nor Dr. Fonklesrud informed Jennifer or her parents about the contaminated blood during the ensuing years of treatment, nor did they counsel about transmission risks or precautions.
- About three years later, Jennifer began dating Daniel Reisner; they eventually became sexually intimate.
- On March 7, 1990, Jennifer was diagnosed with AIDS, traced to the 1985 transfusion; Reisner was tested and found HIV-positive after learning of her diagnosis. Jennifer died about one month later.
- Reisner sued the Regents and Dr. Fonklesrud for negligence based on failure to warn and counsel, alleging that omission foreseeably led to his infection.

## Issues

1. Whether a physician and hospital who know a patient received HIV-contaminated blood owe a duty of reasonable care to the patient’s later, unidentified sexual partner when they fail to warn and counsel the patient (or her parents) about transmission risks.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the pleadings for defendants.
- The court held that the physician and hospital owed Reisner a duty of care, despite his being an unidentified future partner at the time of the alleged negligence.
- The duty arose from the physician–patient relationship, defendants’ knowledge of HIV exposure, and the foreseeability that uninformed patients may transmit HIV to others.

## Legal Principles

- A special relationship (including physician–patient) can create a duty to take reasonable steps to protect foreseeable third persons from harm flowing from that relationship.
- Duty may extend to a foreseeable class of persons even when the specific third party is unknown and not readily ascertainable at the time of the negligent act or omission.
- Where a provider knows a patient has been exposed to a communicable disease through contaminated blood products, reasonable care includes timely informing and counseling the patient (or parents/guardians) about risks and precautions to prevent transmission.
- Policy supports imposing such a duty when the burden of warnings/counseling is limited and causation requirements provide a practical limit on liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hospital and treating physician who learn a patient received HIV-contaminated blood may owe a duty of reasonable care to the patient’s later sexual partners, because failing to warn and counsel the patient creates a foreseeable risk of infection to that class of third parties.


Reisner v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1195 (Ct. App. 1995)