Legal Opinion
Meighan v. Shore
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 4, 1995No. B073932PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, Acting P. J.
In this case we hold that when a husband and wife consult an attorney about a personal injury action against a third party on account of personal injury to one of them, and the other spouse has a potential claim for loss of consortium of which the attorney is or ought to be aware, the attorney has a duty to inform that spouse of the consortium cause of action.
In this case, appellant and her husband thought that he had been the victim of medical malpractice. She sought out an attorney, and found respondent. He was a specialist in that field, and appellant arranged…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Chavez v. Glock, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Bird v. SaenzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Honsickle v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Inniss v. InnissSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2016
- Tucker v. CBS Radio Stations, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.