Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
12 Cal. 3d 382, 525 P.2d 669, 115 Cal. Rptr. 765 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In California, each spouse has a cause of action for loss of consortium caused by a negligent or intentional injury to the other spouse by a third party.
Facts:
- Richard and Mary Anne Rodriguez were a recently married couple, both employed, who were socially active and planned to raise a large family.
- Sixteen months into their marriage, Richard was at work when he was struck on the head by a falling pipe weighing over 600 pounds.
- The accident caused severe spinal cord damage, leaving Richard totally paralyzed in both legs, paralyzed in his body below the chest, and partially paralyzed in one arm.
- Due to his injuries, Richard required constant care, which prompted Mary Anne to quit her job to provide 24-hour assistance.
- Richard lost all capacity for sexual intercourse, preventing the couple from having children and depriving Mary Anne of that aspect of their married life.
- Mary Anne's social and recreational life was severely restricted, and she suffered significant psychological strain from witnessing her husband's constant pain and frustration.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard and Mary Anne Rodriguez jointly filed a complaint in a California trial court against Richard's employer and subcontractors.
- Defendants filed general demurrers (a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) to Mary Anne's cause of action for loss of consortium, citing the controlling precedent of Deshotel.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, expressing its disagreement with the Deshotel rule but feeling bound to follow it, and entered a judgment of dismissal against Mary Anne.
- Mary Anne Rodriguez, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that it was bound by Supreme Court precedent and that only the Supreme Court could overrule Deshotel.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the case.
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 a married person have a cause of action for loss of consortium when their spouse is severely injured by the negligence of a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
Yes. A married person has a cause of action for loss of consortium when their spouse is injured by a third party. The court overrules its prior decisions in Deshotel and West, which barred such claims. The reasoning for the old rule has ceased to be valid, as evidenced by a dramatic reversal in the weight of authority, with a large majority of jurisdictions now recognizing the cause of action. The argument that this change should be left to the Legislature is rejected, as courts have a responsibility to update the common law to reflect societal changes and correct injustices. The court also refutes arguments that the injury is too indirect, damages are too speculative, or that it would open the door to limitless claims, citing Dillon v. Legg's foreseeability standard. The risk of double recovery can be managed procedurally through careful jury instructions and joinder of the spouses' claims in a single action.
Dissenting - McComb, J.
No. The court should adhere to its precedent in Deshotel, which held that any change to the rule denying a wife's recovery for loss of consortium should be left to legislative action.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant evolution in California tort law, overturning the long-standing precedent of Deshotel. It brings California into alignment with the modern majority view by establishing spousal equality for loss of consortium claims. The court's reasoning reaffirms its role in adapting the common law to meet contemporary social realities and standards of justice, particularly by rejecting arguments for judicial deference to the legislature on court-made rules. The application of the foreseeability principle from Dillon v. Legg to the spousal relationship expands the scope of duty in negligence cases and demonstrates how procedural safeguards can overcome substantive objections to recognizing new causes of action.
Unlock the full brief for Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.