# West v. City of San Diego

> California Supreme Court · July 12, 1960 · 54 Cal. 2d 469

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546029

## Case

- **Full name:** DOROTHY D. WEST, an Incompetent Person, Etc., Et Al., Respondents, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 12, 1960
- **Citations:** 54 Cal. 2d 469; 6 Cal. Rptr. 289; 353 P.2d 929; 1960 Cal. LEXIS 183
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dooling
- **Judges:** Gibson, Dooling, Schauer, Peters
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546029

## Opinion text

DOOLING, J., Concurring.
Since I wrote the opinion for the District Court of Appeal in Deshotel v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., (Cal.App.) 319 P. 2d 357 , in which that court held that the wife had a right of action for loss of consortium (hearing granted and opposite conclusion declared by this court, Deshotel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50 Cal.2d 664 [ 328 P.2d 449 ]), a brief explanation seems justified of my concurrence in the conclusion that the husband has no such right. The District Court of Appeal in Deshotel accepted Gist v. French, 136 Cal.App.2d 247 [ 288 P.2d 1003 ], as conclusively settling the law that the husband did have a right of action for loss of consortium of his wife; and it *479 concluded, in view of the modern concept of our law, which recognizes so completely the separate personality of the wife, that her rights in that respect should be no different from her husband’s. We were not faced in Deshotel with the question of the husband’s right to sue for loss of consortium, since we considered that question settled by Gist. Now that this court is reexamining that question, I am satisfied with the conclusion that under our statutory law, the husband has no such right and that Gist v. French, supra, should be disapproved.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546029. Public record. Not legal advice.