Gillespie

Plaintiff’s wife was injured while in the employ of defendant. She has recovered the appropriate benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Plaintiff then sued the employer for loss of his wife’s services, alleging the employer’s negligence. A motion for a summary judgment was granted; plaintiff appeals from the resulting judgment. We affirm.

Defendant relies on the language in section 3600 of the Labor Code that liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is “in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person” (except in cases under section 3706, which is not here applicable). We agree that that language is controlling.

The parties have cited us to no cases in California dealing with the problem before us, and we have found none. We have been cited to sundry cases from other states. Some deal with the right of a parent to pursue the common law action of per quod servitium amisit, some deal with the right of a husband to pursue the common law actions for loss of services and consortium of a wife, some deal with the right of a wife (in states permitting such actions against tortfeasors generally) to pursue similar actions for loss of the services or…