Court Opinion

ID: 9726960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:14:35.37439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.259054
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.
I concur in the majority conclusion that plaintiffs failed to plead a loss of consortium.
I would go one step further and hold that loss of consortium is not compensable in an action based on a manufacturer’s or retailer’s strict liability. The history and rationale of strict product liability in California deals with compensation for personal injuries. It is premised on the social policy that physical injury should be compensated for by persons who are engaged in a producing and marketing enterprise. (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal.2d 256 [37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168].)
In Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9, at page 17 [45 Cal.Rptr. 17, 403 P.2d 145], it was held that a manufacturer, could not be held strictly liable in tort for commercial loss suffered by the plaintiff for the reason that “[t]he manufacturer would be liable for damages of unknown and unlimited scope.”
For that same reason I would refuse to extend liability to cover such an incidental loss as that of consortium.