Vanhooser

Vanhooser v. Superior Court

Good Law
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 230·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 648·206 Cal. App. 4th 921·2012 WL 1959564
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 2012No. B239677California3,852 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

The first element of a loss of consortium cause of action is the existence of a marriage at the time of injury to the plaintiff’s spouse. With asbestos-related illnesses, as with other latent diseases, appreciable injury does not occur at the time of exposure to the toxic substance, but often decades later when disease is diagnosed or symptoms are discovered. In this opinion, we hold that the first element of a loss of consortium cause of action is satisfied if the plaintiff’s marriage to the injured spouse predates discovery of symptoms, or diagnosis, of an asbestos-related disease. This is so even if the marriage postdates the spouse’s exposure to the asbestos that ultimately results in the injury.

Petitioner Sherrell Vanhooser seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion of defendant Hennessy Industries, Inc. (Hennessy), for summary judgment of her loss of consortium cause of action. Hennessy premised its motion on Zwicker v. Altamont Emergency Room Physicians Medical Group (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 26 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 912 ] (Zwicker) to argue that petitioner has no claim for loss of consortium because she was…

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.