Related Attorneys
Horvitz & Levy obtained the affirmance of a summary judgment in favor of a regional center that coordinates services for the developmentally disabled, on the ground that the regional center owed no duty to protect a developmentally disabled woman who had been sexually assaulted by the employee of a vendor hired by the regional center.
Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation is a state-funded, nonprofit regional center operating under the Lanterman Act. Under the Lanterman Act, regional centers such as Harbor coordinate the delivery of services to developmentally disabled individuals (referred to as “consumers” under the Act) but do not provide those services directly. In this case, the employee of one of Harbor’s transportation vendors sexually assaulted a consumer whom the vendor was transporting to an education program. The consumer sued the employee, the vendor, and Harbor. The trial court granted summary judgment in Harbor’s favor, concluding it had no knowledge of the employee’s criminal propensities and that it owed no duty to protect the plaintiff from the third-party sexual assault. The plaintiff appealed.
Horvitz & Levy was retained to defend the judgment on appeal. Plaintiff argued that regional centers are in a special relationship with consumers and therefore owe a broad duty to protect them from harm, similar to the duty owed by school districts to their minor students. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal rejected that argument, concluding that although regional centers are in a special relationship with consumers, the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 counsel against imposing a duty with respect to a vendor employee’s sexual assault, except when the regional center has actual knowledge of the employee’s criminal propensities.
