Grant v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Jul 26, 1984 No. B004006Published

Before: Lillie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an unmarried cohabitant could not maintain a cause of action for loss of consortium where the relationship had existed for only one month and two days at the time of the injury and the plaintiff was legally married to another person.

Issues

Whether an unmarried cohabitant may maintain a cause of action for loss of consortium based on a relationship of short duration.
Whether a relationship is 'stable and significant' under the Butcher v. Superior Court standard when one party is legally married to another person.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As a matter of law plaintiffs' live-in relationship of one month and two days prior to Shirley's injuries does not constitute a stable and significant relationship”

“the fact that James was married to another woman during the entire period he lived with Shirley before she sustained personal injuries prevented their relationship from being either stable or significant within the meaning of Butcher.”

158 Cal.App.3d 813 (1984) 204 Cal. Rptr. 869 SHIRLEY ANN GRANT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Docket No. B004006. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

July 26, 1984. [815] COUNSEL

Marder & Marder, Kenneth A. Marder and Muncie D. Marder for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Veatch, Carlson, Grogan & Nelson and Pamela A. Benben for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

LILLIE, J.

(1a) Shirley Grant and James Plaza filed a complaint seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Shirley in an automobile accident which occurred September 8, 1982, and damages for James' loss of consortium. The second cause of action (loss of consortium) alleged: At the time of the accident plaintiffs were "unmarried cohabitants possessing every characteristic of the spousal relationship except formalization"; as a result of injuries sustained in the accident, Shirley has been unable to perform her duties as a de facto spouse; by reason thereof James has been damaged by loss of the consortium of Shirley. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the second cause of action. The motion was supported by excerpts from the depositions of plaintiffs which showed: Plaintiffs began living together on August 6, 1982; at that time James was married to Hortencia Plaza; Hortencia commenced proceedings for dissolution of her marriage to James after he moved in with Shirley; the interlocutory judgment of dissolution was entered July 8, 1983. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted declarations wherein they stated that they lived together constantly since before the accident; they wanted a family and Shirley became pregnant by James but suffered a miscarriage; plaintiffs planned to marry upon entry of [816]

Grant v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.

AI Brief

OPINION

LILLIE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief