A loss of consortium claim at common law has four elements:
- a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury;
- a tortious injury to the plaintiff's spouse;
- loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and
- the loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s act.’”
LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. 4th 275, 284-85 (2012).
A “spouse’s claim for loss of consortium is unquestionably derivative of, and dependent on, employee's industrial injuries. . . . [it] ‘is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse’” Id. at 284-85.
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court of California: LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. 4th 275, 284-85 (2012).
California 1st Distirct: Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 746 n.2 (2007).
California 2d Distirct: Vanhooser v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 4th 921, 927 (2012).
California 3d District: Zwicker v. Altamont Emergency Room Physicians Medical Group, 98 Cal. App. 4th 26, 30-32 (2002).
California 4th District: None.
California 5th District: None.
California 6th District: None.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: General Motors Corp. v. Doupnik, 1 F.3d 862, 865 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993).
Central District: Malone v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., No. EDCV 09-01980 VAP(DTBx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116666, at *16-17 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010).
Eastern District: Middlekauff v. KCRA-TV, No. CIV S-12-105 KJM DAD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74815, at *10-11 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2012); Graveline v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1039[MMD1] (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Northern District: Lambert v. City of Santa Rosa, No. C 05-02931 CW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30858, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2005).
Southern District: None.