Google Gemini AI Lawsuit Alleges Chatbot Encouraged 13-Year-Old Girl to Plan Suicide

Recently, there have been many wrongful death cases filed against AI companies for the alleged role chat bots have played in helping people plan and commit suicides.  I reported some of those cases - most recently, here, here, here, and here.

Given these recent cases, it is not entirely surprising to see news about yet another similar case.  In this instance, the plaintiffs allege that Google's Gemini encouraged a 13-year-old girl to plan her suicide.  You can read more on the story here.  The story includes a link to the text of the complaint itself.

For all my posts related to cases and issues related to suicide cases, go here and scroll down.

Happy birthday blog! and New Jersey proposes legislation to hold AI chatbots subject to liability in some cases

Today is this blog's 18th birthday!!  and I wonder if it might be the longest continuously running torts blog out there.  All the other blogs I used to keep up with from back then do not exist anymore.  It is hard work to keep a blog going for this long and I am thankful that there are so many of you still following it.

Thank you!!

But enough about that and on to the news:  

The ABA Journal is reporting that a proposed bill in New Jersey targets artificial intelligence chatbots and aims to make them subject to the state’s product liability laws.  You can read more on the story here.

Widow sues OpenAI, blaming ChatGPT for her husband’s death by suicide

 I have been following a few cases in which plaintiffs have sued AI companies alleging that their AI platforms helped (or induced) loved ones to commit suicide.  (The most recent post on this post is here.)

Courthouse News Service reported this week about a new case in which a widow is suing Open AI, the maker of ChatGPT.

This case, however, is significantly different than others because the plaintiff's lawsuit doesn’t include a single conversation between her husband and either chatbot. She believes the conversations contributed to his death, but holds that belief on circumstances, not records.  In essence, it sounds like she filed the lawsuit in an attempt to get access to the logs and records in an attempt to build a case.  

Typically, that is not how things work, and the defendant might argue that the case has been filed without basis in law or facts.  This would make the case frivolous and could lead the court to impose sanctions on the plaintiff's lawyer, so it will be interesting to see how the case progresses.

And, if the case is allowed to continue, it will also be interesting to see how the court handles the possible argument that the decision to commit suicide should be considered to be a superseding cause that defeats the plaintiff's support for the element of proximate cause.  As you probably know, many states have ruled that it is and that it does "as a matter of law."  Yet, a few states have decided to abandon this so-called "suicide rule."  See, for example, here (Washington) and here (Nevada).

Kentucky recognizes cause of action for second hand exposure to asbestos

A number of years ago, there was a flurry of claims arguing that the family members of workers exposed to asbestos should be allowed to recover for injuries suffered from being exposed to the workers’ clothing when the worker got home from work.  

Based on this theory of the case, widows, mostly, tried to recover for their own personal injuries in addition to the harm caused to the workers.  Some of these cases were dismissed but some recognized the cause of action based on the argument that the injuries suffered by the widows were a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the original exposure.  Some of those cases resulted in multimillion dollar verdicts.  (You care read my comments on some of those cases by going, here, here, here, and here.)  

That type of litigation died down after a while and I had not heard of any such case in about 10 years,...  until a couple of weeks ago.  

In a case called Schneider Elec. USA, Inc. v. Williams, 733 S.W.3d 180, 192-194 (Ky. 2026), the court held that “Because foreseeability of take-home exposure turns in part on the nature and regularity of workplace contact with asbestos-containing materials, this factual dispute is material and must be resolved by a jury. . . .  In deciding whether harm was foreseeable, . . . courts look to the general foreseeability of harm, not to whether the particular, precise form of injury could be foreseen. It is enough that injury of some kind to some person within the natural range of effect of the alleged negligent act could have been foreseen.  . . . The duty which could be found here is confined to individuals alleged to have experienced regular and repeated domestic contact with asbestos-contaminated work clothing over an extended period of time.” (Citations omitted.)  

Note how the language of the court matches Judge Cardozo's analysis in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, but that the court ultimately holds the question is for the jury to decide, showing once again that Cardozo set the analysis; but Andrews won the debate as to the procedure.

Torts deterrence effect: After multiple lawsuits alleging brain injuries, Six Flags retires popular roller coaster

The X2 roller coaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain, once described on the amusement park’s website as a “rite of passage for the ultimate daredevil,” has been shut down amid lawsuits alleging that the ride caused serious brain injuries.  The ABA Journal has the story here.

Washington Supreme Court finds state university can be held liable for hazing death at fraternity

 A split Washington Supreme Court on Thursday found that Washington State University owed a duty to protect a freshman who died from alcohol poisoning during a fraternity hazing ritual in 2019.  You can read the opinion here and more on the story here (on the Court of Appeals decision) and here (on the Supreme Court decision).

The court recognized the university owed a duty to plaintiff’s decedent who died from alcohol-poisoning as a result of consuming excessive quantities of alcohol during fraternity hazing at off-campus facilities because the university had a special relationship with the fraternity.  In doing so, the court applied the Restatement (Second) of Torts §315(a) (Am. L. Inst. 1965) that provides that “a defendant owes a duty to a third party’s foreseeable victims when (1) a definite, established, and continuing relationship exists between the defendant and the third party, giving rise to foreseeability, and (2) the defendant has an ability to control the third party to prevent harm to foreseeable victims”.

ALI approves the "Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Remedies"

 After seven years of work, the “Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Remedies" has been approved.  As described by one of its reporters, 

Launched in 2019, the Torts: Remedies Restatement addresses the principles governing the relief available after liability is established in a tort action. Organized around categories of remedies and types of harm, the project provides guidance on the recovery and measurement of damages, restitution of a wrongdoer’s profits, injunctions against threatened or continuing torts, and other forms of specific relief. Damages topics covered include general rules for measuring compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages, and compensation for specific harms such as lost wages or lost profits, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and damage to property. 

Among other developments, the Restatement would eliminate reliance on race- and sex-based assumptions in calculating personal injury damages such as future lost earnings and medical expenses. It also proposes a rule to explain and rationalize the longstanding judicial practice of compensating dignitary harm whether or not there is any more direct evidence of damages.

....  The Restatement also addresses areas of disagreement among courts, including issues such as the measurement of damages in complex contexts and the standards governing punitive damages, while aiming to clarify doctrine and provide a more consistent analytical framework.

You can read the full announcement here. 

More cases against OpenAI over injuries arguably caused by ChatGPT use; and a comment on why recognizing such claims would be bad policy

 The number of claims against OpenAI related to injuries alleged to have been caused by the use of ChatGPT continues to rise.  For two stories on this I posted recently go here and here.  Here are the latest stories I have seen:

Family of FSU shooting victim sues OpenAI over suspect’s ChatGPT use (The Hill 5/11/26)

Parents accuse ChatGPT of assisting in son’s drug-induced death (ABA Journal 5/13/26)

For some commentary on these types of claims, you should take a look at this article:  "More Liability Will Make AI Chatbots Worse At Preventing Suicide" (TechDirt, 5/6/26)

Commentary on the Alien Tort Statute

 A few days ago I reported that the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case about the Alien Tort Statute.  Dorf on Law has now published a comment and analysis of the issues here.

Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Alien Tort Statute

Today the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case called Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe which raises the issue of whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) or the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allows lawsuits against parties for aiding and abetting violations of international law.  

LawFare has a long preview of the case here.  SCOTUSblog has a discussion of the oral argument here.

 

Washington Court allows claim against Amazon based on plaintiffs' decedent's suicide -- UPDATED

February 22, 2026

 Long time readers of this blog may remember that I have posted a number of times about cases dealing with whether Amazon can (or should) be considered a "seller" for purposes of product liability law.  (Go here and scroll down.)

The most recent of those cases involved that claims of the families of three teenagers and a young adult who died after ingesting sodium nitrite purchased on Amazon. The trial judge denied a motion to dismiss the complaint but the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the plaintiffs could not support the element of duty because the decedents had intentionally misused the product.

I am writing about this today because earlier this week, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously reversed holding that the plaintiffs could continue to pursue their claim against Amazon.  You can read more about the case in Courthouse News Service, and you can read the decision of the court here.

In deciding the case, the court rejected the so-called "suicide rule" which is still in place in many jurisdictions and according to which the act of suicide is, as a matter of law, a superseding cause that defeats the cause of action.  The court's rejection of this rule follows a recent ruling in Nevada and what appears to be a new trend on the issue. Go here for more on that story.

UPDATE (3-12-26):  Courthouse News Service has a story on the case here.

Supreme Court holds that U.S. Postal Service can’t be sued over intentionally misdelivered mail

On February 24, the Supreme Court decided that the exception to the Federal Torts Claims Act that protects the U.S. Postal Service from lawsuits over lost or miscarried mail also bars lawsuits in cases where a postal worker intentionally failed to deliver an individual’s mail.  The vote on the decision was 5 to 4, with a dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in which she argued that the majority opinion provided the U.S. Postal Service far more protection from lawsuits than Congress had intended to give it. The case is called U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, and you can read the opinion here.  

As you probably know, the Federal Torts Claims Act was enacted to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort.  However, the Act retained a long list of exceptions for cases in which the Federal Government retains immunity.  Among those is an exception which covers “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”  

In previous cases, the Court has decided that the exception does not apply to claims arising from car accidents caused by postal employees delivering mail or to claims for slip and falls caused by negligent placement a package on a porch step.  The issue in Konan was whether the exception should cover claims concerning intentional misconduct committed by postal employees, including the conduct of withholding a person’s mail for malicious reasons. 

The majority opinion rules that the statute bars these claims, even in cases where a postal worker intentionally fails to deliver an individual’s mail.  The dissenting opinion, in contrast, argues that  the majority opinion provides the U.S. Postal Service far more protection from lawsuits than Congress had intended to give it.

You can read more about the case in Courthouse News Service, SCOTUS Blog and The Hill.

US Supreme Court: state requirement of certificate of merit in malpractice case does not apply in federal court

In one of the first reported decisions of the term, the US Supreme Court has decided that a state law requirement (to file a certificate of merit) in a medical malpractice case should not apply if the claim is filed in Federal Court.

The case is called Berk v. Choy.

You can read a summary and comment on it in SCOTUS blog.

Yet another lawsuit filed against ChatGPT for its alleged role in a user's suicide

 Since August of last year I have seen several cases filed in different jurisdictions against AI platforms alleging in one way or another that the platform contributed to a person's decision to commit suicide.  See here, and here.  I also reported on the fact that Nevada decided to abandon the so-called "suicide rule" which will make it less difficult to support a prima face case for injuries caused by suicide.  See here.

So, today I am reporting on yet another case filed against ChatGPT.  In this one, the mother of a man who killed himself after conversing with the chatbot is suing the generative artificial intelligence company OpenAI and its CEO and founder, Sam Altman. According to the article, the mother alleges that the AI platform coached her son into suicide, even while he told ChatGPT that he did not want to die.

You can read more about this case here.

Another lawsuit filed against makers of ChatGPT based on the AI platform's alleged role in a suicide

 I recently posted a comment on a case filed by the parents of a minor suing the makers of ChatGPT alleging that the AI platform helped their son commit suicide (see here).

Now comes news that a similar lawsuit has been filed in California.  In this one, in its capacity as executor to a deceased woman, a bank filed the claim against the maker of ChatGPT arguing that the platform was responsible for inducing a mentally unstable son to kill his elderly mother and then commit suicide.

Courthouse News Service has the full story here, and NPR has a brif audio commentary here.

School district may be liable for bullying on school bus

I have blogged before on cases that discuss whether a school or school district can be liable for bullying (see here).  Now comes news that a federal court in Pennsylvania recently allowed portions of a couple’s civil rights complaint to proceed against a school district after their autistic 6-year-old son was allegedly beaten on a school bus on two separate occasions. They have plausibly alleged certain school officials placed the child in harm’s way by ignoring warnings about another student with documented, violent behavior.  You find a link to the decision here.

Puerto Rico Senate adopts bill to eliminate joint and several liability

 About two weeks ago, the Puerto Rico Senate approved a bill to undo over 120 years worth of precedents and eliminate joint and several liability in Torts cases.  

If you have followed this blog for some time, or are familiar with my work, you won’t be surprised to know that I think this is a bad result.  I have, in fact, authored several law review and law journal articles in defense of joint and several liability.

Interestingly, even though some people think that law review articles are irrelevant and that no one reads them, the preamble to this new bill cites two of those articles of mine and includes a long quote from one of them.  In both articles I explained why it is a bad idea to do what the bill does, but I guess the authors of the bill thought their project would not be convincing unless they explicitly tried to refute my work. 

This is not the first time that lawmakers have tried to eliminate joint and several liability in Puerto Rico.  Most recently, it had been part of the proposal for a new Civil Code in the early 2000s and then again in 2019-2020.  For good reasons, though, both times, the propoal was quickly defeated and did not make it to the new code.

Yet, now, with the backing of the insurance industry, and to the detriment of future injured plaintiffs, they got the bill through the Senate and it now awaits the Governor’s signature.  I heard there is a group of law professors trying to convince the Governor not to sign it, but I don’t know what to expect.  

If you can read Spanish you can take a look at the bill here.

Nevada Supreme Court abandons "suicide rule" and adopts proximate cause analysis for all suicide cases

 Long time readers of this blog may remember I have often posted about cases involving claims for wrongful death arising out of someone’s suicide.  (See here.)  These are always difficult cases, not only because of the underlying circumstances surrounding the death but also because, as you probably know, the prevailing approach to the issue is that suicide is a superseding cause as a matter of law.

Yet, I have noticed in recent years more courts are coming around to the view that this so-called “suicide rule” should be abandoned – a position I happen to agree with.  See my comments on cases from Tennessee, Arizona, Alabama and Illinois, for example.

So, today I am writing about this topic again, because the Supreme Court of Nevada just issued an opinion doing away with the suicide rule in a very well written opinion in a case called Bourne v. Valdes,  569 P.3d 971 (Nev. 2025).  As the court explained:

We conclude that a patient’s suicide does not preclude liability for medical malpractice as a matter of law.  Rather, like any other action alleging that a medical provider’s negligence caused injury or death to a patient, the ordinary principles of medical malpractice apply.  Consistent with existing Nevada medical malpractice law, a medical provider who is alleged to have provided negligent care to a patient owes a duty of care to that patient, regardless of whether the medical provider has control over, or custody of, the patient.  If the medical provider’s conduct is proven to fall below the standard of care, then “the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant’s negligent conduct led to or made it reasonably foreseeable that the deceased would commit suicide.” White v.  Lawrence, 975 S.W.2d 525, 530 (Tenn.  1998).  If the patient’s suicide is a foreseeable consequence of the medical provider’s negligence, then the medical provider may be held liable.  See Patricia C.  Kussmann, Annotation, Liability of Doctor, Psychiatrist, or Psychologist for Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Patient’s Suicide, 81 ALR 5th 167, § 4 (2000) . . .  However, where the patient’s suicide is not foreseeable, then the suicide is a superseding intervening cause, severing the causal chain and relieving the medical provider of liability for their negligence.  White, 975 S.W.2d at 530.  

I agree that this is the correct analysis that should be applied. Suicide is sometimes unforeseeable, but often it is foreseeable and plaintiffs should have the chance to prove it.  The notion that suicide should be considred to be unforeseeable as a matter of law is based on the notion that committing suicide goes so against human nature that it is inconceivable that someone would decide to do so.  The problem with this is that this view is not realistic.  Suicide is common.  In fact, it is one of the top leading causes of death among juveniles in the US.  And, if you take into account mental health issues, and known medication side effects, it is unrealistic to say that suicide is necessarily unforeseeable.  In many cases, it can fairly be argued (and proven) that it was totally foreseeable.

US Supreme Court opens term considering case under the Federal Torts Claims Act

 This week, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the Federal Torts Claims Act.

In this case the plaintiff sued the federal government and the US Postal Service alleging damages because postal workers refused to deliver mail to the plaintiff’s property.  The lower court dismissed the claim, the Torts Claims Act recognizes immunity for the federal government in matters involving the handling of postal matters, which includes lost and delayed mail.  But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that intentional non-delivery is not a “loss,” “miscarriage,” or “negligent transmission” of mail, because those terms don’t cover intentional acts.

Here an article on the background of the case:  "How a mail delivery dispute made it to the Supreme Court."

Here is an article reviewing the oral argument: "Court debates lost catalogs and delayed Christmas cards while hearing case on intentionally undelivered mail."  

US Supreme Court to decide whether state limits on malpractice actions apply in federal court

The SCOTUS blog reports on an upcoming case:

Berk v. Choy, to be argued on Oct. 6, surely will be the Supreme Court case of the year for medical professionals. At issue in the case is the extent to which a set of common state statutes designed to stem medical malpractice litigation apply in federal court. If they don’t apply in federal court, victims who have a way to get into federal court will have a much easier time pursuing litigation against doctors than those who cannot.

The case involves Delaware’s “affidavit of merit” statute, something that dozens of states have passed in recent years. Although the details vary, the key concept is that for a medical malpractice action to proceed, the case either has to involve medical negligence that is pretty obvious – the doctor left a foreign object in the patient’s body, the doctor operated on the wrong person, the doctor operated on the wrong organ – or the plaintiff has to file with the complaint an affidavit from a medical professional attesting to the negligence of the doctor who is being sued. Because those affidavits are somewhat hard to come by – how many doctors want to help someone sue another doctor for malpractice? – they pose a serious obstacle to the pursuit of many medical malpractice claims.

.... To continue reading the story go to the SCOTUS blog here.