WPC5 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P &P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   25;,<Q-=-0[[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman Regulard6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P &P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2553|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 960584ă & Stan Praesel and Louise Herbert, Petitioners  *v.ă Raymond Johnson, M.D., et al., Respondents   On Application for Writ of Error to the \ Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texasă   Argued on November 5, 1997 ă Justice Enoch, concurring. I join parts I and II of the Court's opinion and the Court's judgment in this case. I write separately because I disagree with the Courts narrow holding and discussion in part III. At the outset, I am troubled by the Court's conclusion that the doctors owed no duty because "the risk that a seizure may occur while driving and the potential consequences should be obvious to those who suffer from epilepsy." ___ S.W.2d at ___. First, this conclusion is based upon an assumption that is wholly unsupported in the record. This Court does not know what epileptics are supposed to know about whether they should ever drive a car. Second, inherent in the Courts assumption is the premise that epileptics are per se negligent if they have a seizure while driving that results in an accident. The Legislature, however, doesnt share this view. As the Court concedes, ___ S.W.2d at ___, epileptics are specifically permitted to drive automobiles in Texas.This case should not be decided on the basis that epileptics should know not to drive without being told by a doctor. Even if the Court is correct in making this assumption, it is unwarranted on this record and will have unforeseen effects in cases involving other medical conditions. My greater concern, though, is how the Court anguishes over whether the doctors had a duty to warn. The Court makes it clear that the Praesels do not claim that the doctors should have warned them; rather, they claim the doctors should have warned the patient. In short, the Praesels are bringing a thirdparty claim for breach of the doctors duty to the patient. We have rejected these types of claims time and time again. In fact, the Court today cites the seminal cases that hold that a health care professionals duty is to the patient, not to a third party. ____ S.W.2d ____ (citing Edinburg Hosp. Auth. v. Trevi9o, 941 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Tex. 1997), and Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex. 1994)). Edinburg and Bird should dispose of the issue. But the Court engages in an extended discussion about whether these doctors have a duty to warn. So I must point out that the duty to warn, if there is one, is to warn the third party directly, not the patient. Small wonder then that courts wrestle over whether such a duty exists when the third parties are not known. See Limon v. Gonzaba, 940 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex. App."San Antonio 1997, writ denied) ("If the victim is not identifiable, then who is the physician to warn?"); see also Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334, 335 (Cal. 1976), explained in Thompson v. County of Alameda, 614 P.2d 728, 734 (Cal. 1980)(holding that, under Tarasoff, a duty runs only to "readily identifiable"  third parties).Also, the Court cites Gooden v. Tips, 651 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. App."Tyler 1983, no writ). Gooden stands for the proposition that a doctor may be liable to third parties injured by the conduct of a patient when the doctor failed to warn the patient about the effects of a drug that the doctor prescribed. See id. at 36970. When stripped of its dutytowarn language, Gooden simply holds that a physician owes a duty to a third party to not negligently treat a patient. In light of our holdings in Edinburg and Bird, Gooden cannot be good authority and we should make that clear to the courts of this state.#A\  PP#эI concede we noted Gooden in Bird, but we neither applied its reasoning nor considered whether it was a correct statement of the law. Bird, 868 S.W.2d at 770. On the other hand, I agree with the Court that Gooden is very close to the facts of this case. Consequently, I think the Court should not merely cite Gooden, but address whether it expresses a correct rule of law. %* * * * * As we have held more than once, a doctors duty is to the patient, not a third party. I join parts I and II of the Court's opinion and the Courts judgment. Because I cannot join part III of the Courts opinion, I respectfully concur.  ` ` ` hhh__________________________ ` ` ` hhhCraig T. Enoch ` ` ` hhhJustice Opinion Delivered: April 14, 1998.