Borer v. American Airlines, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1977 · Torts

Tortsloss of consortiumparent-child relationshipnegligenceloss of consortiumparental consortiumchild plaintiffnegligence

Facts

The plaintiffs were the nine children of Patricia Borer. They alleged that a cover on a lighting fixture at the American Airlines Terminal at Kennedy Airport fell and struck their mother on March 21, 1972. According to the complaint, Patricia's injuries deprived each child of her services, society, companionship, affection, tutelage, direction, guidance, instruction, and aid in personality development because she could no longer perform her usual duties as a mother. The complaint asserted negligence, breach of warranty, and defective product theories, and each child sought $100,000 in damages.

Issue

Whether a child may maintain a cause of action for loss of parental consortium when a parent is negligently injured by a third party. Also, whether denying such a claim violates equal protection because children may recover for loss of a parent's affection and society in wrongful death actions.

Rule

Judicial recognition of loss-of-consortium claims must be narrowly circumscribed. California does not recognize a nonstatutory cause of action by a child for loss of parental consortium arising from negligent injury to a parent, because policy considerations including the inadequacy of monetary compensation, difficulty of measuring damages, risk of double recovery, and multiplication of claims justify limiting consortium actions to the marital relationship. The distinction between denying such claims in injury cases and allowing recovery in wrongful death actions is rational and does not violate equal protection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Nora Vega was severely injured when a delivery van owned by Sierra Harbor Couriers allegedly ran a red light and struck her car. Nora survived, but her 12-year-old son Mateo claims he has lost her companionship, guidance, and affection during her lengthy recovery.

If Mateo sues Sierra Harbor Couriers for loss of parental consortium, what is the most likely result?

Explanation. The majority refused to recognize a new nonstatutory cause of action by a child for loss of parental consortium when a parent is negligently injured but survives. The court acknowledged the reality of the child’s loss but held that policy concerns—especially the inadequacy of monetary compensation, difficulty measuring damages, risk of double recovery, and expanded liability—justify denying the claim. Foreseeability alone is not enough. (Derived from Borer v. American Airlines, Inc. (n.d.).)