Butcher v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 11 January 1983 |
Citation | 139 Cal.App.3d 58,188 Cal.Rptr. 503 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 40 A.L.R.4th 539 Ralph Lloyd BUTCHER, III, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; Cynthia Lynn FORTE, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 29076. |
*
This case involves a unique and interesting issue: whether the "spouse" in a nonmarital cohabitation arrangement may state a cause of action for loss of consortium when the other "spouse" is injured by a third party.
Paul Forte was walking across the street when he was allegedly struck by Ralph Butcher's Volkswagen. Paul suffered a fractured neck, forearm and leg, and a severe cerebral contusion. Paul sued Butcher for personal injuries. Cindy Forte sued as Paul's wife for loss of consortium with Paul. In pretrial discovery, Butcher learned that Cindy and Paul did not have a valid legal marriage, although Cindy testified at her deposition that she and Paul had a "common law" marriage.
Paul and Cindy began living together on September 11, 1969. Since that time, Cindy has used the name Forte. At the time of the accident, March 28, 1981, Paul and Cindy had been living together as husband and wife for 11 1/2 years. They had two children together, filed joint income tax returns, and maintained joint savings and checking accounts. Paul acknowledges and refers to Cindy as his wife. Cindy testified that she and Paul had a common law marriage, and she considered them to be married as of September 11, 1969.
Upon learning that there had been no valid legal marriage between Cindy and Paul, Butcher moved for summary judgment on Cindy's claim for loss of consortium. After argument, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. Defendant Butcher now petitions this court for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to grant the motion for summary judgment.
Butcher argues that there can be no claim for loss of consortium without a valid legal marriage because the right to consortium grows out of the marriage.
The notion that a valid legal marriage is a prerequisite to the cause of action for loss of consortium has its origin in the common law view that the wife was more or less a servant or chattel of the husband, and that therefore he was entitled to an independent cause of action if the wife were injured, since the tortfeasor would have damaged the husband's property rights in the services and society of the wife. (See, e.g., Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Honey (8th Cir.1894) 63 F. 39.)
The theory of the cause of action for loss of consortium has changed, however, since its early common law statement of proprietary entitlement. The wife is no longer a chattel or servant. The element of loss of services is no longer the essence of the cause of action. The real damage is to what may be called a relational interest. An interference with the continuance of the relation, unimpaired, may be redressed by a tort action. (Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 124, p. 873.)
There are many evidences of a shift from the proprietary entitlement theory of consortium to a relational interest theory. First were the cases which finally allowed the wife as well as the husband to state a claim for loss of consortium. The rule that the husband alone had such a cause of action has (Prosser,supra, § 125, pp. 894-895.)
The cases cited by Butcher for the proposition that a valid legal marriage is a prerequisite to a cause of action for loss of consortium involve injuries which occurred before the marriage. While some of the cases simply couple the chattel notion with a sort of caveat emptor doctrine (the husband takes the wife "as is," and cannot recover for the premarital injury (Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Sharp (1917) 19 Ga.App. 503, 91 S.E. 1045; Booth v. Baltimore & O.R. Co. (1915) 77 W.Va. 100 )), other cases seem to recognize the relational interest involved. For example, in Donough v. Vile (1947) 61 Pa.D. & C. 460, the wife had been injured before the marriage. The court held that the husband had no cause of action for loss of consortium. (Id., at pp. 461-462.)
This is no more than to state that the cause of action protects the parties' relational interest, and if the relationship did not exist at the time of the tort, a fortiori it could not be injured. In fact, application of this principle to all of the premarital injury cases would lead to the same result in each case. If the injury occurs before the relationship is established, when the parties are engaged, or acquainted, or perhaps total strangers to one another, then the interest in continuing the relationship undisturbed has not been injured.
While limiting the type of relationship recognized to a legal marriage, the court in Sawyer v. Bailey (Maine 1980) 413 A.2d 165, at page 167 stated that "the law is concerned with the protection of the 'relational' interests of married persons and recognizes as an actionable tort any interference, intentional or negligent, with the continuation of the relation of husband and wife, such as the right to damages for the loss of consortium of either one of the spouses." (Emphasis in original.) The court further recognized that (Ibid.)
Thus, while refusing to extend the doctrine beyond the bounds of legal marriage for policy reasons, courts have clearly recognized and redefined the theory of the tort to be an interference with the continuation of the relational interest.
We next address the argument that, even recognizing an unmarried person's interest in the continuation of the relationship with the nonmarital partner (Sawyer v. Bailey, supra, 413 A.2d 165), policy reasons dictate limiting those interests to the legally married. Recent cases speak in terms of judicial linedrawing; whether the line should be drawn to include or exclude the interest of a nonmarital cohabitant.
Some policy considerations which would arguably limit recognition of the relational interest to legally married couples are: (a) lack of precedent for extending the cause of action to unmarried couples, (b) the injury to the unmarried partner is too indirect, (c) the damages would be too speculative, (d) there is a danger of double recovery, (e) the cause of action would be extended to other classes of plaintiffs, and (f) public policy favors marriage.
The argument that recovery for loss of consortium in a nonmarital relationship breaks new ground and is without precedent, or that it should be left to legislative action (People v. Pierce (1964) 61 Cal.2d 879, 882, 40 Cal.Rptr. 845, 395 P.2d 893.)
" (Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 393-394, 115 Cal.Rptr. 765, 525 P.2d 669; 15A Am.Jur.2d, Common Law, §§ 1, 3, pp. 594-596, 597-598.)
"This flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation is the peculiar boast and excellence of the common law." (Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 U.S. 516, 530, 4 S.Ct. 111, 118, 28 L.Ed. 232, 237.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coon v. Joseph
...142 Cal.Rptr. 726 [recovery denied where parties engaged before accident and married after accident]; contra Butcher v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 58, 188 Cal.Rptr. 503.) In Ledger v. Tippitt, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d 625, 210 Cal.Rptr. 814, the court held that plaintiff's complaint ......
-
Elden v. Sheldon
...55 Cal.App.3d at p. 582, 127 Cal.Rptr. 720), and whether the relationship was "stable and significant" (Butcher v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 58, 70, 188 Cal.Rptr. 503). Butcher, which will be discussed infra in connection with the cause of action for loss of consortium, suggested......
-
Ledger v. Tippitt
...of cohabitation without marriage in the United States increased by 800 percent between 1960 and 1970 (Butcher v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 58, 68, 188 Cal.Rptr. 503, citing comment, Consortium Rights of the Unmarried: Time for a Reappraisal (1981) 15 Family L.Q. 223, 224), and th......
-
Hackford v. Utah Power & Light Co.
...765 (1974); Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal. 3d 441, 563 P.2d 858, 138 Cal.Rptr 302 (1977); Butcher v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.3d 58, 188 Cal.Rptr 503 (4th Dist.1983); Grant v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 158 Cal.App.3d 813, 204 Cal.Rptr 869 (Cal.Ct.App.2d Dist.1984); Norwest......
-
WRONGS TO US.
...claims to an unmarried couple), overruled in part by Heath v. La Mariana Apts., 180 P.3d 664 (N.M. 2008); Butcher v. Superior Ct., 188 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Ct. App. 1983) (same), overruled by Elden v. Sheldon, 758 P.2d 582 (Cal. 1988). Courts have been quite reluctant to relax the traditional ru......
-
Domestic partnership benefits: Why not offer them to same-sex partners and unmarried opposite sex partners?
...interdependence.') (40) Richardson, supra note 16, at 120. (41) Id. (42) Id. (43) Id. (44) Butcher v. Superior Court of Orange County, 139 Cal. App. 3d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. (45) Id. at 59. (46) Id. at 60. (47) Id. (48) Id. at 70. (49) Butcher, 139 Cal. App. 3d at 70. (50) Richardson, supra not......
-
Teaching Torts by Integrating Ethical, Skills, Policy and Real-world Issues, and Using Varied Pedagogical Techniques: Reflections on Using the Henderson, Pearson and Siliciano Casebook
...v. Rosemar Silver Co., 514 N.E.2d 1095 (Mass. 1987), reprinted in HENDERSON ET AL., supra note 9, at 365-66. 29. Butcher v. Super. Ct., 188 Cal. Rptr. 503, 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 30. HENDERSON ET AL., supra note 9, at 30-34. 31. Id. at 694-700. 32. See, e.g., 272-73, 290-97 (regarding duty to r......