Lexplug logoLexplug

Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.

California Supreme Court
230 P.3d 342, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 806, 48 Cal. 4th 788 (2010)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of res judicata bars a wrongful death action seeking loss of consortium damages when the plaintiff previously dismissed with prejudice a common law loss of consortium action based on the same underlying injury. Both actions involve the same primary right to be free from the wrongful deprivation of spousal companionship, and a common law claim allows recovery of prospective damages for the 'lost years' after an injured spouse's anticipated premature death.


Facts:

  • Richard Boeken began smoking cigarettes in 1957.
  • In 1999, Richard Boeken was diagnosed with lung cancer, which he attributed to smoking Philip Morris USA, Inc.'s cigarettes.
  • In October 2000, while Richard was still alive, his wife, Judy Boeken, sued Philip Morris for loss of consortium, alleging she had been 'permanently deprived' of his companionship and affection due to his illness.
  • Approximately four months after filing her lawsuit, Judy Boeken voluntarily dismissed her loss of consortium action 'with prejudice'.
  • In January 2002, Richard Boeken died from his lung cancer.
  • Following her husband's death, Judy Boeken filed a new lawsuit against Philip Morris for wrongful death, again seeking compensation for the loss of her husband's companionship and affection.

Procedural Posture:

  • Judy Boeken filed a common law action for loss of consortium against Philip Morris in a state trial court while her husband was alive.
  • Boeken later voluntarily dismissed that action with prejudice.
  • After her husband's death, Boeken filed a new statutory wrongful death action against Philip Morris in state trial court.
  • Philip Morris filed a demurrer, arguing the second action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
  • The trial court sustained Philip Morris's demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing Boeken's case.
  • Boeken appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
  • A divided panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • The California Supreme Court granted Boeken's petition for review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the doctrine of res judicata bar a plaintiff from bringing a statutory wrongful death action after they have previously filed and dismissed with prejudice a common law loss of consortium action against the same defendant for the same underlying harm?


Opinions:

Majority - Kennard, J.

Yes. The doctrine of res judicata bars the wrongful death action because it involves the same primary right as the previously dismissed loss of consortium action. Under California's 'primary rights' theory, a cause of action is defined by the harm suffered, not the legal theory asserted. Both of Boeken's lawsuits sought compensation for the same harm: the loss of spousal companionship and affection caused by Philip Morris's conduct. A common law action for loss of consortium allows a plaintiff to recover prospective damages, which includes damages for the period after an injured spouse's anticipated premature death. Therefore, Boeken's first action for 'permanent' loss of consortium encompassed all potential damages, both pre- and post-death. Her dismissal with prejudice acted as a final judgment on the merits for that entire primary right, precluding her from relitigating the same harm under a different legal theory (statutory wrongful death).


Dissenting - Moreno, J.

No. The wrongful death action should not be barred by res judicata because a statutory wrongful death claim and a common law loss of consortium claim involve distinct primary rights. A wrongful death action is a unique statutory creation that requires the death of the decedent as an element and does not accrue until death occurs. In contrast, a common law loss of consortium action arises from a non-fatal injury. The wrongful death claim could not have been raised when the first suit was filed because Mr. Boeken had not yet died. While the damages may overlap, the invasion of different primary rights means they are separate causes of action. The dismissal of the first suit should not automatically bar the second, though principles against double recovery would prevent recovering the same damages twice.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the application of the 'primary rights' theory in California, emphasizing that a single harm gives rise to only one cause of action, regardless of the different legal theories available. By holding that a predeath loss of consortium claim includes damages for 'lost years,' the court effectively merges the recovery for consortium loss into a single, comprehensive action. This precedent significantly impacts litigation strategy, compelling plaintiffs in similar situations to litigate all aspects of their consortium loss in one predeath lawsuit, as a subsequent wrongful death action for the same type of non-economic damages will be barred by res judicata.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"