{"id":300,"date":"2026-02-26T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=300"},"modified":"2026-02-26T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-26T12:00:00","slug":"fisher-v-fisher-d083806-wrongful-death-iied-legal-causation-relapse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=300","title":{"rendered":"Fisher v. Fisher \u2014 Wrongful-Death Verdict Affirmed Where Brothers’ False Police Report Caused Recovering-Alcoholic Brother’s Fatal Relapse"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Fisher v. Fisher<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-26<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D083806<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Wrongful Death, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Legal Causation, Relapse, Punitive Damages<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The Fisher case stems from a feud among four adult brothers over their parents’ estate. Decedent Wade Fisher and plaintiff Todd Fisher were on one side; defendants Brittin Fisher and Kent Fisher were on the other. Wade was a recovering alcoholic who had been sober for 15 years; he had moved to Hawaii to escape the family dysfunction.<\/p>\n

Five months after the brothers’ mother died, Brittin and Kent called the San Diego Police Department and falsely reported their mother missing \u2014 even though they knew she had died of natural causes. The intent, plaintiffs alleged, was to cast suspicion on Todd and Wade. SDPD called Wade to inquire and quickly dropped the matter once they learned of the death. The phone call, however, greatly upset Wade. A week later, he relapsed: drove his motorcycle drunk and high on marijuana without a helmet, crashed, and died. A psychologist testified at trial that the phone call caused Wade’s relapse.<\/p>\n

Todd sued Brittin and Kent for wrongful death on his own behalf and as Wade’s successor in interest. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), found they had conspired with malice, oppression, or fraud, and awarded approximately $5.1 million to Wade’s estate and $4.3 million to Todd, including $80,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. Defendants appealed, conceding all liability findings except legal causation.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress was a legal cause of Wade’s death within the scope of liability for wrongful-death recovery. Applying the broader standard of legal cause applicable to intentional torts, the court concluded that no public policy supported limiting liability when the jury found defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the severe emotional distress that triggered Wade’s relapse and subsequent fatal motorcycle ride.<\/p>\n

The court emphasized that the legal-causation standard for intentional torts is more permissive than for negligence. Defendants who intentionally inflict severe emotional distress through false statements designed to harm the plaintiff cannot escape liability merely because the chain of foreseeable consequences includes a victim’s relapse and subsequent risky behavior. The jury’s finding of substantial-factor causation, supported by expert testimony, sufficed.<\/p>\n

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court rejected defendants’ remaining contentions and affirmed the full judgment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n