Meighan

Meighan v. Shore

Caution
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 420·34 Cal. App. 4th 1025·40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 744·95 Daily Journal DAR 5734·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3354
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 1995B073932California8,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

In this case we hold that when a husband and wife consult an attorney about a personal injury action against a third party on account of personal injury to one of them, and the other spouse has a potential claim for loss of consortium of which the attorney is or ought to be aware, the attorney has a duty to inform that spouse of the consortium cause of action.

In this case, appellant and her husband thought that he had been the victim of medical malpractice. She sought out an attorney, and found respondent. He was a specialist in that field, and appellant arranged an appointment for herself and her husband to consult with him. They met in respondent’s law office, where the case was discussed. Respondent agreed to take the case. He told appellant that her husband, rather than she, was the client, and that only he was to sign the retainer agreement. Nothing was said during the interview about appellant’s right to pursue an action in her own right for loss of consortium, and neither appellant nor her husband had any idea that there was such a tort.

Respondent filed a suit for medical malpractice against a physician and a hospital. Appellant’s husband was the only named…

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.