Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Cal.3d 382 (1974)

CASE: Woman sues husband's employer for loss of consortium resulting from a catastrophic injury he received on the job.

FACTS: Mary and Richard Rodriguez were young, active and looking forward to a life together that included children when Richard was left paralyzed by an accident at his workplace. Mary was transformed from a wife to a nurse, quitting her job to tend to his considerable needs, such as going to the bathroom, turning him over in the middle of the night so as to decrease the possibility of bedsores and comforting him in his new and difficult life. She sued his company for a lack of consortium; defendants filled general demurrers on the ground that no recovery for any such loss is permitted in California.

DEFENDANT ARGUES: Loss of consortium is not a recognized cause of action under Deshotel v. Atchison T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1958), a case which specifically held that no recovery can be made for loss of consortium.

PLAINTIFF ARGUES: Her life, her dreams, her hopes have been shattered by this injury to her husband. She cannot have children with him, she cannot express her love for him physically and she must suffer through her husband's pain and anguish right alongside him as his primary caretaker.

COURT SAYS: Judgment dismissing the cause of action dismissed.

HOLDING:Rule barring a married person whose spouse has been injured by the negligence of a third party from filing a cause of action for loss of consortium expressly overruled.

RATIONALE:

• Times have changed so that and increasing number of jurisdistions now recognize loss of consortium (one of the rationales for the old rule was that only a minority of states permitted a loss of consortium cause of action).
• Loss of support from an injured spouse (husband) and loss of consortium are two distinct losses so that awarding for each would not constitute impremissible double counting.

T O P