Elden v. Sheldon
758 P.2d 582, 250 Cal. Rptr. 254, 46 Cal.3d 267 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unmarried cohabitant may not recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) from witnessing the tortious injury of their partner, nor may they recover for loss of consortium.
Facts:
- Richard Elden and Linda Ebeling were in an unmarried cohabitation relationship, which Elden described as stable, significant, and parallel to a marriage.
- Elden and Ebeling were involved in an automobile accident allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant Sheldon.
- Elden was a passenger in the car Ebeling was driving.
- During the accident, Ebeling was thrown from the car.
- Elden witnessed Ebeling's injuries.
- Ebeling died a few hours after the accident.
- Elden sustained his own serious personal injuries in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Elden filed a complaint against Sheldon and the vehicle's owner in a state trial court.
- The complaint included causes of action for Elden's own injuries, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
- Defendants filed a demurrer (a motion to dismiss) challenging the causes of action for emotional distress and loss of consortium.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal on those two causes of action.
- Elden (appellant) appealed the judgment of dismissal to the intermediate appellate court.
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 an unmarried person who cohabits with another in a relationship allegedly equivalent to a marital relationship have a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress or loss of consortium after witnessing the tortious injury and death of their partner?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. An unmarried cohabitant may not recover damages for either negligent infliction of emotional distress or loss of consortium. While the emotional harm to an unmarried partner may be foreseeable, strong public policy considerations justify denying recovery. First, the state has a strong interest in promoting the institution of formal marriage, and granting marital rights to unmarried cohabitants inhibits this interest. Second, allowing such claims would impose a difficult burden on the courts to inquire into the private details of relationships to determine if they were 'stable and significant,' leading to inconsistent results and intrusions of privacy. Third, there is a need to draw a bright-line rule to limit the scope of a defendant's liability to a controllable degree and avoid an intolerable burden on society that would arise from an ever-expanding class of potential plaintiffs (e.g., de facto siblings, parents, etc.). The right to recover for loss of consortium is founded on the relationship of marriage, and absent such a relationship, the right does not exist.
Dissenting - Broussard, J.
Yes. An unmarried person in a stable and significant relationship should be allowed to state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. The majority's 'no marriage—no recovery' rule is an arbitrary, bright-line rule that ignores the core tort principle of foreseeability. The emotional trauma to a partner in a stable, long-term relationship is entirely foreseeable. The policy arguments against recovery are hollow: allowing recovery does not inhibit the state's interest in marriage, and courts are capable of making the necessary factual determinations about the stability of a relationship, just as they do when assessing damages in consortium claims for married couples. Liability should be based on functional grounds of real, foreseeable loss, not on the arbitrary, definitional ground of marital status.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a firm, bright-line rule in California, prioritizing judicial administrability and the state's policy favoring marriage over a case-by-case foreseeability analysis for NIED and loss of consortium claims. It definitively rejects the reasoning of lower courts that had begun to recognize 'de facto' marital relationships for the purposes of tort recovery. The ruling solidifies legal marriage as an essential prerequisite for these specific relational tort claims, signaling that any expansion of these rights to unmarried partners must come from the legislature, not the courts.
