Monday, July 13, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Drug Treatment Facility Owes No Duty of Care to Neighbors
Opinion Says Not Reasonably Foreseeable That Patient Would Break Into Nearby Home, Leading Homeowner to Fire Fatal Shots, Even if Intruder Had Been Showing Signs of Psychotic Break Before He Left Center
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that an inpatient drug rehabilitation center that operates from a private home in a residential area of Newport Beach owes no duty of care to neighbors who allege that a resident left the facility during an observed psychotic break and busted through their front door in the middle of the night, purportedly causing the frightened homeowner to fatally shoot the intruder.
Clinton and Jennifer Haining, the homeowners, filed a complaint against the center, Gratitude Lodge LLC, for negligence, alleging that the incident caused them significant emotional distress and that the facility was in a special relationship with its clients and breached a duty to control the resident who was shot. The trial judge sustained the rehabilitation center’s demurrer to the operative pleading, without leave to amend, finding that the facility owes no duty to the neighboring residents.
Presiding Justice Joanne Motoike authored Thursday’s unpublished opinion, joined in by Justices Thomas A. Delaney and Nathan R. Scott, saying:
“Because we find the harm to the Hainings was not reasonably foreseeable, we agree Gratitude Lodge did not owe the Hainings a duty and affirm.”
Substance Abuse Treatment
The question arose after Henry Lehr was purportedly admitted to the Newport Beach facility on Aug. 23, 2021 for substance abuse treatment. The Hainings alleged that two days later, staff members witnessed him having auditory and visual hallucinations of dogs, demons, and the devil.
According to the plaintiffs, Gratitude Lodge staff took Lehr to a nearby hospital, which was not set up to initiate involuntary psychiatric holds, and he was returned to the center following discharge a few hours later, where his hallucinations and erratic behavior purportedly continued.
Clinton Haining reported that he grabbed a firearm after hearing a crash around 4:20 a.m. and started down the stairs of the home, where he observed Lehr, who, according to the plaintiffs, charged at him before the homeowner fired at the trespasser.
After filing a complaint on Aug. 3, 2023, alleging that the facility “owed a duty to care to third persons, including Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care in attempting to prevent Lehr from engaging in behavior that posed a threat to others,” Gratitude Lodge demurred, arguing that the 1979 decision by Div. Four of the First District in Beauchene v. Synanon Foundation foreclosed the plaintiffs’ theory.
That case held that a private rehabilitation center housing parolees and other convicted persons did not owe a duty of care to protect the public from its residents, citing as “of paramount concern” the detrimental effect a contrary holding would have on attempts to rehabilitate prisoners.
After Jennifer and Clinton Haining filed an amended complaint, this time additionally asserting a negligent undertaking theory of liability, Orange Superior Court Judge Kimberly A. Knill sustained the defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend on Sept. 24, 2024. The Hainings challenged the ruling on appeal, arguing in their opening brief:
“Once Gratitude Lodge took these steps [of undertaking the care and supervision of Lehr], it had to perform those actions competently and obtain the appropriate level of care, such as by bringing him to a hospital…which could provide in-patient services and potentially a [psychiatric] hold. Alternatively, they could have simply called 911 and allowed emergency services to refer him to the appropriate level of care. Its failure to do so when Lehr’s actions indicated that it was foreseeable that he would act out violently based on his delusions and fantasies, therefore, supports negligent undertaking liability as well.”
Two-Step Inquiry
Citing the 2021 California Supreme Court case of Brown v. USA Taekwondo, which established that whether to recognize a duty to protect is governed by a two-step inquiry asking whether there is a special relationship between the parties giving rise to an affirmative duty to protect and, if so, whether certain public policy factors weigh in favor of limiting that obligation, Motoike wrote:
“The Hainings have not cited any post-Brown authority supportive of its position that a provider of residential drug rehabilitation services such as Gratitude Lodge, simply by virtue of its role of providing such services, has an ability and concomitant duty to control its clients.”
She continued:
“Here, the first amended complaint does not allege Gratitude Lodge had the ability to control Lehr, who was a voluntary resident at Gratitude Lodge. The complaint also does not allege Lehr had any history of violence or was otherwise dangerous. Consequently, there is no basis on this record to conclude Gratitude Lodge had a duty to control Lehr with respect to the Hainings.”
Public Policy Factors
Saying that, even if the court assumed that the defendant had the asserted duty to control, public policy factors would counsel against the imposition of such an obligation, the jurist remarked:
“These factors ‘fall into two categories. The first group involves foreseeability and the related concepts of certainty and the connection between plaintiff and defendant. The second embraces the public policy concerns of moral blame, preventing future harm, burden, and insurance availability.’ ”
Addressing foreseeability, she opined:
“Lehr entered the facility on a voluntary basis and there are no allegations Gratitude Lodge had the authority to restrict Lehr’s movements. Given the facts here, we cannot say it is reasonably foreseeable that, if Gratitude Lodge had control over Lehr and failed to exercise such, Lehr would, after leaving the facility, break into another’s home, and as a result of this break in, be killed by the homeowner.”
Motoike added:
“The Hainings do not contend Gratitude Lodge was on notice that Lehr was going to illegally enter their home or any home in the neighborhood. The emotional injury they incurred as a result of such conduct is not closely connected to Gratitude Lodge’s failure to adequately care for and supervise Lehr.”
Earlier Cases
Commenting that “the parties devoted much time in their briefing and at oral argument trying to distinguish or analogize the holdings in Beauchene” and its progeny, she pointed out that “[t]hese cases, however, predate the two-step analysis of duty…set forth in Brown” and “rely on specific legislative policies regarding treatment facilities for those involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.” She declared:
“On balance, given the foreseeability issues…, even if Gratitude Lodge had a duty to control Lehr, the [public policy] factors weigh in favor of not imposing such a duty.”
As to the plaintiff’s negligent undertaking theory, she said the doctrine was inapplicable because “the services rendered by Gratitude Lodge were not of a kind necessary for the protection of third persons like the Hainings” and said:
“The Hainings do not argue in the trial court, and have not argued on appeal, much less demonstrated in either court, there is a reasonable possibility the defects in the pleading of their claim against Gratitude Lodge in the complaint can be cured by further amendment. We therefore conclude the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained without leave to amend.”
The case is Haining v. Gratitude Lodge LLC, G064850.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company