I once tried a police brutality case where the Highway Patrol (aka CHIPs) stopped a woman who had five children, not her own, in the car. We obtained her medical records and found out that she had suicidal ideation right before she got in the car with the kids. There went the plaintiff’s case. Half the jury thought that the cops had not hurt her, and the other half felt that SHE had a duty to warn the parents of the children that she was considering killing herself with five young ones in the car. Defense verdict.
The duty to warn in California has a long history, but got expanded dramatically by the Tarasoff case. That involved a psychiatrist who had a patient that was allegedly threatening harm to a third party. The Court held that the psychiatrist had a duty to warn the intended victim if the threat as it was defined and the possible victim was certain.
Now let’s go to the upcoming Rio Olympics. A number of athletes have declined to attend on the premise that they are concerned about the Zika virus. Others have suggested that a number of golfers have bailed because there is no money to be had there. Do the team doctors have a duty to tell participating athletes about the threat? Is there a threat?
I would argue that
- The threat is minimal,
- Unlike Tarasoff, there is plenty of public information out there and
- Anyone going assumes the risk given public knowledge. It is a little like the abortive suit against the Oakland As for someone getting hit by a ball. You go, the risk is on you.