In Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, a 6-1 Supreme Court answered “no” to the question “whether plaintiff, who witnessed the tortious injury and death of the person with whom he shared a cohabitant relationship allegedly akin to a marital relationship, may recover damages for loss of consortium and negligent infliction of emotional distress.” Dissenting Justice Allen Broussard wrote, “The convenience and certainty of a foolproof bright line is not sufficient to justify denying recovery to an entire class of deserving plaintiffs on the arbitrary ground of marital status.”
Today the court indicated it might overrule Elden when it granted review in Sanchez v. Rojas. In a brief, unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Two, affirmed the dismissal on demurrer of a case for damages due to a plaintiff witnessing injuries to her “partner and significant other” in an auto versus pedestrian accident.
Division Two said it was bound by Elden, a point the plaintiff conceded. It declined the plaintiff’s request to “encourage the California Supreme Court to overrule Elden because it may shed light on the issue underlying this case.” The appellate court said “it would not be helpful or appropriate to discuss the merits of this issue here.”
