Smith v. Freund
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 427
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- William Freund, 19, lived with his adoptive parents Karen and Dennis Freund and suffered from Asperger’s syndrome; he committed two homicides and then suicide.”
- Plaintiffs Denise Smith and her son Brandon Smith are victims’ relatives who sue the Freunds for wrongful death and emotional distress, respectively.
- Defendants move for summary judgment arguing no duty to control an adult child and no foreseeability of harm; plaintiffs seek discovery to depose William’s doctors.
- On appeal, the court previously reversed denial of a continuance and allowed discovery, finding a potential duty could exist; after remand, the trial court again granted summary judgment finding no duty; this opinion affirms.
- The court analyzes whether a duty to third parties to control William exists under special relationships or voluntary undertakings, applying Biakanja/Rowland factors and Tarasoff principles to determine foreseeability and duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty to control third parties exists due to a special relationship or undertaking | Smiths assert a duty from parent-child relationship and undertakings | Freunds contend no duty to control an adult son; no foreseeability | No duty; no third-party liability for William's acts |
| Whether the Biakanja/Rowland factors support a duty to protect third parties | Foreseeability and connection to injury justify duty | Factors weigh against duty; conduct not causally linked | Biakanja/Rowland factors weigh in favor of no duty |
| Whether William’s adulthood negates any potential duty based on living at home and parental control | Age and dependency imply control and foreseeability | Adulthood defeats duty to control third parties | Adulthood negates duty to control third parties in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (duty to warn or protect potential victims under Tarasoff framework)
- Megeff v. Doland, 123 Cal.App.3d 251 (Cal. App. 1981) (special-relationship duty to control others; reliance on ability to control)
- Hansra v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.4th 630 (Cal. App. 1992) (limits of parental duty to control adult child; ability to control required)
- Wise v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.3d 1008 (Cal. App. 1990) (parent-child relationship as a special relationship for duty analysis)
- Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1958) (establishes Biakanja/Rowland duty analysis factors)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (duty analysis framework for negligence absent privity)
- Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1982) (Biakanja/Rowland factors consideration)
- Greenberg v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. App. 2009) (explanation of summary-judgment standard and mutual duties)