Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Barbara A. v. John G. - 145 Cal. App. 3d 369, 193 Cal. Rptr. 422 (1983)

Rule:

Although the right to privacy is a freedom to be carefully guarded, it does not insulate a person from all judicial inquiry into his or her sexual relations. It should not insulate from liability one sexual partner who by intentionally tortious conduct causes physical injury to the other.

Facts:

A woman who suffered an ectopic pregnancy and was forced to undergo surgery to save her life, which rendered her sterile, brought an action against the man who impregnated her, her former attorney. The woman alleged that she consented to sexual intercourse in reliance on the man's knowingly false representation that he was sterile, that the attorney-client relationship produced in her sense of trust, and that she justifiably relied on his representation. The trial court ruled that no cause of action was stated and granted the attorney's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Issue:

Does a woman suffering injuries from an ectopic pregnancy have a cause of action in tort against the responsible man for his misrepresentations of infertility?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the trial court's judgment because the facts alleged in the woman’s cross-claim stated causes of action for battery and deceit. The woman stated a claim for battery that was not vitiated by consent because the woman alleged that the attorney's act of impregnation, following his false representations of procreative inability, exceeded the scope of the consent. The woman also stated a claim for deceit under Cal. Civ. Code § 1709 because she pleaded the essential elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. The exception to a cause of action for seduction under Cal. Civ. Code § 43.5 was not applicable because the woman’s complaint was not based on her virtue or humiliation but on her resultant ectopic pregnancy. Although the constitutional right to privacy normally shielded sexual relations from judicial scrutiny, it did not do so where one sexual partner by intentionally tortious conduct caused physical injury to the other.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates