|
0542 DEPUBLISHED Children of a woman with whom defendant psychotherapist had sexual contact were not "direct victims" of defendant's conduct, and therefore were not entitled to recovery for negligently inflicted emotional distress, because there was no pre-existing consensual relationship between them and defendant; the woman's husband might have been a "direct victim," because his express consent to her treatment and tacit consent to payment of the psychotherapist from community assets resulted in a pre-existing consensual relationship; the period of limitations on the husband's claim began to run when he first suspected that defendant was having sexual contact with his wife.CitationUNDERWOOD v CROY (Amorous Shrink) 25 CA4 281 [See: Molien v Kaiser 27 C3 916; Burgess v SuperCt 2 C4 1064; Marlene F v Affiliated 48 C3 583; Bro v Glaser 22 CA4 1398; CCP 340 etseq]
|
|
