Hair

Hair v. County of Monterey

Caution
119 Cal. Rptr. 639·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1706·45 Cal. App. 3d 538
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1975Civ. 32592California7,484 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rouse, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining demurrers without leave to amend. Plaintiffs Don and Betty Hair are the natural parents of Michael Hair, a minor nine years of age at the time of the filing of this action. The complaint alleges that as the result of oral surgery performed by the defendant physician, John Mead, in facilities of defendant County of Monterey’s General Hospital, the child sustained permanent injuries including blindness, brain damage, quadraplegia and petit and grand mal seizures.

The original complaint was demurred to by defendant Mead and an amended complaint was filed, which was demurred to by both defendants. The amended complaint sought recovery on behalf of the parents for the extraordinaiy care and attention they would provide the child; the dimunition of the time, care and attention available for each other and their remaining children; emotional shock and injury to the parents’ nervous systems sustained after witnessing the child’s injuries; and for the lost society, companionship, comfort and society of their child.

Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to recover for care and attention above and beyond…

Concurring Opinion

Kane, J.

I concur with the well-reasoned opinion authored by Justice Rouse. I have serious misgivings, however, about the efficacy of permissible joinder to prevent the double recovery problem. While it is, of course, true that the danger of double recovery may be avoided by joinder, this places the burden on the wrong party. Thus, henceforth in every case brought by an injured spouse or on behalf of an injured minor, a defendant will be burdened with the necessity of discovering whether a parent or spouse has filed—or intends to file—an independent action. In some counties where court calendars are current, it is not at all inconceivable that the primary case could be concluded prior to filing of the “consortium” case. Permissive joinder is of no assistance in avoiding the danger of double recovery in that situation.

To prevent the possibility of double recovery the burden should be placed on the party who has the power to prevent it—namely, the parent of the injured child or the noninjured spouse in the Rodriguez situation.

It would be a very simple matter for the Legislature to enact a provision requiring mandatory joinder of spousal and/or parental causes of action with the cause of…

Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining demurrers without leave to amend. Plaintiffs Don and Betty Hair are the natural parents of Michael Hair, a minor nine years of age at the time of the filing of this action. The complaint alleges that as the result of oral surgery performed by the defendant physician, John Mead, in facilities of defendant County of Monterey's General Hospital, the child sustained permanent injuries including blindness, brain damage, quadraplegia and petit and grand mal seizures.

The original complaint was demurred to by defendant Mead and an amended complaint was filed, which was demurred to by both defendants. The amended complaint sought recovery on behalf of the parents for the extraordinary care and attention they would provide the child; the dimunition of the time, care and attention available for each other and their remaining children; emotional shock and injury to the parents' nervous systems sustained after witnessing the child's injuries; and for the lost society, companionship, comfort and society of their child.

(1) Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to recover for care and attention…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.