Gregory v. Cott
59 Cal. 4th 996
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Gregory, a home health care worker, was hired by Bernard and Lorraine Cott (Alzheimer's patient) through a home health agency to assist in their private home.
- Gregory knew Alzheimer’s patients can be violent; Lorraine was combative and could bite, kick, scratch, and flail.
- Gregory injured her wrist when Lorraine grabbed a knife while Gregory was washing dishes; no one was at home at the time.
- Gregory sued the Cotts for negligence and premises liability, and Lorraine for battery; workers’ compensation had been paid to Gregory.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the defense; the Court of Appeal affirmed, applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
- California law asks whether Alzheimer’s patients owe liability to caregivers and whether primary assumption of risk shields the patient from duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alzheimer’s patients owe a duty to care employees. | Gregory relies on no-duty rule from 41/1714 and argues facts show duty exists. | Court should apply primary assumption of risk because caregivers face risks inherent to caring for Alzheimer’s patients. | Yes; patient owed no duty to protect caregiver under primary assumption of risk. |
| Does primary assumption of risk apply to in-home professional caregivers employed by agencies? | Herrle’s logic applies only to institutional settings, not private homes. | Relationship and risk are the same; the caregiver’s duties place the risk within employment. | Yes; rule extended to professional home health workers employed by an agency. |
| Should private-home caregivers’ injuries be treated under secondary assumption of risk or firefighter/veterinarian rule? | Secondary assumption of risk should govern; there is a duty and fault by the patient’s family. | Duty may be waived because the risk was inherent to caregiving in this relationship. | Secondary analysis not adopted here; primary assumption of risk controls in this context. |
| Does public policy against institutionalization justify extending primary assumption of risk to in-home care? | Policy favors deinstitutionalization; caregiver protection should be aligned with private-home care. | Policy should not shift liability to families; worker protection and home-based care are balanced by the rule. | Yes; public policy supports staying home but does not favor extending liability; workers’ compensation preferred. |
| What role does workers’ compensation play in this context? | Caregivers should have tort remedies beyond workers’ comp. | W/C should be the exclusive remedy for on-the-job injuries in this setting. | The majority endorses workers’ compensation as the appropriate remedy; tort recovery barred for this class. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (Cal. 1992) (two forms of assumption of risk; duty analysis depends on public policy and relationship)
- Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc., 8 Cal.4th 532 (Cal. 1994) (firefighter’s rule; duty no longer owed for risks inherent in the employment)
- Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 2006) (veterinarian’s rule; kennel workers assumed risk due to nature of job)
- Herrle v. Estate of Marshall, 45 Cal.App.4th 1761 (Cal. App. 1996) (extending primary assumption of risk to institutional Alzheimer’s care; no duty to protect caregivers)
- Gould v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 543 N.W.2d 282 (Wis. 1996) (Alzheimer’s patient’s aggression; caregiver exception consistent with primary assumption)
- Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. 2000) (public policy favoring deinstitutionalization; caregiver injury context)
- Anicet v. Gant, 580 So.2d 273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (mental patient owes no duty to hospital attendant in certain circumstances)
- Colman v. Notre Dame Convalescent Home, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 809 (D. Conn. 1997) (institutional setting; caregiver injury context)