In Richard H. v. Larry D. (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 591, the court did not hold that it was foreseeable that a psychiatrist would have a sexual affair with a woman seeing him for marriage counseling; it held that it was foreseeable that her husband would suffer injury from the psychiatrist's conduct if he discovered it. (Id. at pp. 595-596.) The Court concluded that the psychiatrist's actions could constitute professional malpractice. (Richard H., supra, 198 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 595-596.) The court did not conclude that the psychiatrist had acted in the course and scope of his employment when he engaged in a sexual relationship with a client. Rather, it merely observed that the plaintiff husband had so alleged, and his complaint was therefore sufficient to survive demurrer. (Id. at p. 596.)