Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.
In this case we are called upon to decide whether California should continue to adhere to the rule that a married person whose spouse has been injured by the negligence of a third party has no cause of action for loss of “consortium,” i.e., for loss of conjugal fellowship and sexual relations. (Deshotel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 664 [328 P.2d 449]; West v. City of San Diego (1960) 54 Cal.2d 469, 475-478 [6 Cal.Rptr. 289, 353 P.2d 929].) As will appear, we have concluded that the reasons for this rule have ceased and that California should join the large…
2Cases cited79 opinions
- Hurtado v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by243 opinions
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. DillonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Molien v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- J'Aire Corp. v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
238 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.