Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Woman Not Liable for Husband’s Beating of Neighbor
Justices Say She Had No Duty to Control Him or Warn of His Dangerousness
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A wife could not have been expected to control her husband’s conduct and had no duty to warn neighbors of his violent propensities, the First District Court of Appeal has held, saying that she cannot be held liable for her spouse having come onto the front yard of the house next door and, without provocation, hitting the woman who lived there with a metal bat, punching and kicking her, and ripping a handful of hair from her scalp.
Not only was a cause of action for ordinary negligence not stated, Presiding Justice Alison M. Tucher of Div. Three said in Friday’s opinion, but the elements of a negligent misrepresentation were not set forth in the operative pleading even though defendant Leslie Vallee had affirmatively represented to the next-door neighbors that her husband, Laurent Vallee, was not dangerous.
The beaten woman, plaintiff Casey Sproul, sued Leslie Vallee in connection with the battery, as did her husband, Andrew Sproul, alleging loss of consortium. They could not sue the assailant Laurent Vallee; in the aftermath of the assault—on Feb. 12, 2022—police came to question him and he committed suicide.
A lawsuit by the Sprouls against the decedent’s estate is not affected by the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Judgment on Pleadings
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Terri Mockler granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Leslie Vallee, in her individual capacity. Tucher agreed with Mockler that amending the pleading would be futile owing to a lack of duty to warn, but spotted a slight chance that the Sprouls could add allegations that they were oblivious to certain displays of violence on the part of the decedent in the neighborhood and that they had actually relied, reasonably, on Leslie Vallee’s representation that he was not a threat to them.
As the Sprouls recited those incidents in their brief on appeal:
“[B]efore the February 2022 incident, Larry yelled at his neighbors, vandalized their property, shot BB guns at neighborhood kids, and got into a fistfight after a neighbor’s dog walked past his property.”
Explaining the reversal and remand, Tucher said:
“[T]he complaint alleges that Larry fired guns in the neighborhood and displayed irrational aggressiveness toward other neighbors, but it does not foreclose the possibility that plaintiffs knew nothing of these incidents. Nor does it foreclose the possibility that plaintiffs’ concerns were assuaged by Leslie’s reassurances and that, had she not misled them, they would have taken precautions that would have protected them from Larry’s violence. Although plaintiffs may have an uphill battle, we are not persuaded that the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment to allege more clearly what misrepresentations Leslie made, how plaintiffs relied on them to their detriment, and why their reliance was reasonable. In the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.”
As the pleading now stands, however, “plaintiffs have not pleaded reasonable reliance” on the assurance of non-dangerousness, so that “the first amended complaint does not allege a cause of action against Leslie for negligent misrepresentation,” the presiding justice wrote.
Issue of Duty
The Sprouls argued in their brief that the defendant did have a duty to warn. They cited the California Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California where it was held that a therapist had, and breached, a duty to alert a person on whom a patient of his had divulged an intent to inflict harm.
That patient did, in fact, proceed to kill the woman.
Justice Matthew Tobriner said in an opinion for the majority that “a duty of care may arise from…a special relation...between the actor”—in context, the person with knowledge of the peril—“and the third person” who uttered a threat “which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person’s conduct.”
The respondents noted that on the day the Vallees moved into their home, the husband quitclaimed his interest in the abode to his wife. They argued:
“Where, like here, a spouse can compel their partner to give up all their property rights to a home they bought together, there is evidence of control.”
Foreseeability Requirement
Tobriner declared in Tarasoff that “[t]he most important of” the “considerations in establishing duty is foreseeability.”
The Sprouls put forth that on the night of the day when the Vallees moved in, Leslie Vallee went to their home to tell of her husband’s anger that their air conditioner was too loud and subsequently conveyed other complaints by her spouse. On one occasion prior to Feb. 12, 2022, Laurent Vallee shoved Casey Sproul to the ground.
“Larry’s foreseeable attack of Casey was the culmination of years of threats—hand-delivered by Leslie—and at least one instance of physical violence directed at Casey,” the respondents’ brief says, asserting:
“Here, Appellants argue that at minimum, based on Leslie’s level of control over Larry and her superior knowledge of Larry’s violent tendencies, Leslie had a duty to warn foreseeable victims that Larry was, in fact, a violent person. In this unique instance, because Casey had been previously attacked by Larry, because Leslie had delivered years of Larry’s threats, and because Leslie knew of Larry’s potential for violence, Appellants contend that Leslie had a duty to warn Casey….Had the Sprouls been apprised of the dangers posed by Larry’s violent behaviors, they could have taken steps to prevent the harm.”
Arguments Rejected
Tucher responded:
“We agree with the trial court that the allegations of the first amended complaint do not indicate that Leslie had the ability to control Larry. Their relation as husband and wife does not establish such an ability…and nothing in the complaint suggests Leslie had any control over Larry’s angry and occasionally violent outbursts.”
She wrote:
“There are no allegations of a known threat directed specifically at Casey. The case is therefore clearly distinguishable from Tarasoff….Although the complaint here alleges facts from which one could reasonably infer that Leslie knew Larry to have an uncontrollable temper and violent tendencies, there are no allegations that Leslie knew Larry planned to harm Casey physically or that it was foreseeable his violence directed specifically toward her would escalate.”
California’s strong policy in favor of marriages, she said, is manifested in the qualified privilege of one spouse not being compelled to reveal communications with the other and the unconditional privilege not to testify against him or her. Given that the law recognizes that such forced testimony would gravely upset the marital relationship, “it must also recognize the disruptive impact of imposing a duty to warn one’s neighbors of a spouse’s violent tendencies,” Tucher opined.
The case is Sproul et. al. v. Vallee, A172205.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company