Lawyer needs other lawyers' help

[OC Lawyer]

Hello,

I am a California attorney representing a California home builder that sold a mass produced residence to a purchaser. That purchaser had landscaping installed, and the landscaper told the purchaser that the soil around the structure has very high levels of Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT).

The purchaser consulted with a medical doctor (an m.d./allergist) believing that purchaser’s cough was related to the high levels of BT. Contrary to all medical and scientific knowledge, the allergist agreed and told the purchaser to permanently move out of the residence. Purchaser moved out just over two years ago, continued making mortgage payments, and renting a residence in a city apartment. The total rent paid is approximately $18,750.00.

Purchaser sued my client and seeks personal injury, rescission and $18,750.00.

At a Mandatory Settlement Conference, the Pro Tem agreed that my allergist/immunologist and multiple other experts would clearly carry the day, and that plaintiff (and purchaser’s allergist) would completely fail in proving personal injury or any basis for rescission. However, the Pro Tem also believed plaintiff would prevail against my client for the $18,750.00 because purchaser relied on the advice of purchaser’s physician in moving out of the residence. The Pro Tem said that even assuming the physician’s advice was malpractice, the purchaser was not under any duty to “doctor shop”, and could rely on that bad advice (unless it was something even a layman would know is wrong).

I’ve done much research, but I’ve found no cases in this regard. I’ve found cases that deal with justifiable reliance in fraud cases, but none deal with a plaintiff relying on the bad advice of one person as justification for plaintiff’s dealings with another person. Also, the “non fraud” cases I’ve seen only deal with an injury (not present in my case) made worse by the negligent acts of a third party. These cases are not applicable to my case.

Does anyone have any experience in this regard? Can plaintiff rely on the bad advice of a physician in making a claim against my client? Any cases, statutes or other help would be greatly appreciated.

[tranquility]

I am uncertain as to what element in which cause of action is helped by reliance on the doctor based on your post. The contract cannot be breached without penalty just because a third party says so. Can I get my doctor to say I'm stressed at paying my mortgage and then move out and demand the money I've paid in so far? Heck, why a doctor? I can reasonably rely on my mom, can't I? You've said you can prove no damages from the BT, so we aren't talking about negligence. Besides, I'd say the "advice" is a supervening, intervening cause. So if negligence, I'd also start looking for causation issues in negligence. Novus actus interveniens and all that.