Coronavirus Negligent Transmission Lawsuits Have Become the Next Big Thing

Can You Sue Someone for Transmitting Coronavirus? California Supreme Court seems to suggest negligence cause of action is possible.

UPDATE March 9, 2020: Princess Cruise Line gets hit with lawsuit for exposing passengers to Coronavirus (Source: TMZ).

With Coronavirus transmissions on the rise, lawyers will start asking whether someone can be sued for negligently transmitting Coronavirus. The answer appears to be that (you guessed it): it depends.

Chances are that the cost of bringing such a suit would be so expensive that it would never be filed by someone who lived, but missed work or was merely sick for a few weeks. Rather, such a lawsuit would be most likely to be brought by the family of someone who died from Coronavirus, i.e., a wrongful death action by the representative of the decedent’s estate.

“To prevail in an action for negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177, 1188; see 6 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts § 961 (2019).

Duty to Prevent Negligent Transmission of Infectious Diseases

On the issue of duty, you might be thinking: “I don’t owe a duty to everyone in the world!”

Not so fast. California Civil Code Section 1714(a) provides that: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person….” Many other states have similar laws.

Said another way: “All persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others being injured as the result of their conduct.” Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, 112. To determine whether there is a duty, courts weigh “the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.” Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, 113; see Elements of Claim, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Trial Claims and Def. (The Rutter Group 2019) Ch. 6(I)-B, 6:18.

In 1980, the California Court of Appeal decided in Doe v. Roe (1990) 218 Cal.App. 3d 1538, 1541 the liability for transmission of herpes where it was undisputed that the defendant had actual knowledge he was infected was herpes, and had had several prior outbreaks, but “believed that he could not transmit it to [the plaintiff] as long as he was symptom free.” In affirming judgment for the plaintiff, the court emphasized that the “defendant admittedly had actual knowledge that herpes was sexually transmissible…. Having discovered that he had a venereal disease, defendant did nothing.” Id. at 1546; see Risk of Venereal Disease., 6 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts (2019) § 1044; see also Kathleen K. v. Robert B. (1984) 150 Cal. App. 3d 992, 997 (finding liability for transmission of herpes where “consent to sexual intercourse [was] vitiated by one partner’s fraudulent concealment of the risk of infection with venereal disease”).

“A Person is Liable if He Negligently Exposes Another to a Contagious or Infectious Disease”

The Doe case was cited in 2006 by the California Supreme Court in deciding the liability of a husband who was sued by his wife for infecting her with HIV. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177. The John B. court found liability for negligent transmission of HIV extends to situations where the actor, under the totality of circumstances, had reason to know of the infection. John B. quoted a case from North Carolina finding that: “For over a century, liability has been imposed on individuals who have transmitted communicable diseases that have harmed others.” Berner v. Caldwell (Ala.1989) 543 So.2d 686, 688.

The California Supreme Court in John B. also quoted a case from North Carolina finding that “it is a well-settled proposition of law that a person is liable if he negligently exposes another to a contagious or infectious disease.” Crowell v. Crowell (1920) 105 S.E. 206, 208. John B. further cited American Jurisprudence that: “The general principle is established that a person who negligently exposes another to an infectious or contagious disease, which such other thereby contracts, is liable in damages.” 39 Am.Jur.2d (1999) Health, § 99, p. 549.

In other words, the issue of Coronavirus negligent transmission liability under civil law is hardly one of duty, but rather turns on questions of breach, causation and harm.

Breach of Duty by Failing to Use Reasonable Care

“After establishing the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant, a plaintiff, to support a claim of negligence, must show that the defendant breached that duty.” Reasonable person standard, Cal. Civ. Prac. Torts (2019) § 1:19.

“All persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others being injured as the result of their conduct; ordinary care is that degree of care which people of ordinarily prudent behavior can be reasonably expected to exercise under the circumstances of a given case. In other words, the care required must be in proportion to the danger to be avoided and the consequences that might reasonably be anticipated.” Hilyar v. Union Ice Co.,(1955) 45 Cal. 2d 30, 36.

In the case of Coronavirus transmission liability in civil court, given the expense, it would probably only be brought against a defendant who had actual knowledge that they were infected. A reasonably prudent person might stay away from the public until they were deemed healthy by following the CDC guidelines.

The standard would likely be heightened for those who interact with members of the public who are particularly susceptible to dying from Coronavirus, such as the elderly, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Given the massive media exposure to information about the Coronavirus, it may not be difficult to establish that a person with knowledge that they had Coronavirus did not take reasonable precautions.

Coronavirus negligent transmission lawsuits

Causation May be the Hardest Element to Prove

“California has definitively adopted the substantial factor test of the Restatement Second of Torts for cause-in-fact determinations. Under that standard, a cause in fact is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. The substantial factor standard generally produces the same results as does the ‘but for’ rule of causation which states that a defendant’s conduct is a cause of the injury if the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ that conduct.” Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, 968–69, as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 22, 1997) (citing Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 1041, et al.)

In the case of an alleged Coronavirus transmission, the plaintiff would bear the burden of proving that the particular defendant (or defendants) was (or were) the source of the transmission. Proving this would likely require experts, with the defendant(s) likely having no difficulty finding an expert to opine that it is not possible to determine the exact source of the infection.

This may turn on whether the transmission victim had extensive contact with various parties, as most people do. The exception may be a person who is in a confined place, such as a senior living in a senior home or person who’s only contact is with a caretaker who visits their house.

However, California imposes a second hurdle for plaintiffs: “The doctrine of proximate cause limits liability; i.e., in certain situations where the defendant’s conduct is an actual cause of the harm, the defendant will nevertheless be absolved because of the manner in which the injury occurred. Thus, where there is an independent intervening act that is not reasonably foreseeable, the defendant’s conduct is not deemed the ‘legal” or proximate cause.” 6 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts (2019) § 1335.

“Causation analysis in tort law generally proceeds in two stages: determining cause in fact and considering various policy factors that may preclude imposition of liability.” Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1232, 1235, n. 1. However, the HIV case from John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177 provides language suggesting that those with knowledge of their communicable disease should take reasonable precautions, meaning this may not be a barrier to liability.

Damages Will be Obvious in a Wrongful Death Action

As explained above, damages will be obvious if the transmission was made to a person who died from the Coronavirus.

Will litigation ensue from Coronavirus transmissions under the legal theory of negligence? Will courts find that such a theory is legally permissible? Only time will tell.

About Scott Talkov

Scott Talkov is a partition lawyer in California. He founded Talkov Law Corp. after more than one decade of experience at a California real estate litigation firm, where he served as one of the firm's partners. He has been featured on ABC 7, CNN, KCBS, and KCAL-9, and in the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Press-Enterprise, and in Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine. Scott has been named a Super Lawyers Rising Star for 9 consecutive years. He can be reached about new matters at or (844) 4-TALKOV (825568). He can also be contacted directly at

Talkov Law is Rated 5 out of 5 stars based on 39 customer reviews.

Contact Us Today for a Free Consultation & Pay No Retainer

Call Talkov Law to discuss having your legal fees paid from the proceeds of sale of your property and no money down

Awards and Recognition

US News and World Report Scott Talkov

We Have Been Featured On:

The Real Deal

Recent Blog Posts

Los Angeles Office
10880 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 496-3300

Orange County Office
4000 MacArthur Blvd Ste 655
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 888-8800

San Jose Office
99 S. Almaden Blvd Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 777-6800

San Diego Office
11622 El Camino Real Ste 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 800-3300

San Francisco Office
50 California St, Ste 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 966-3300

Riverside Office
3610 Central Ave, Ste 400
Riverside, CA 92506
Phone: (951) 888-3300

Sacramento Office
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 668-3300

The information on this site, including the Talkov Law Blog, is intended for general information purposes only. By using this site, you agree that any information contained in the site does not constitute legal, financial or any other form of professional advice. Information on this site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, correct or up-to-date.