The opinion
BEST, J.
I concur in the result but, to the extent that the majority opinion may be read as supporting and encouraging judicial creation of causes of action for loss of consortium in the parent-child relationship, I must voice reservations.
“The decision whether to limit liability for loss of consortium by denying a cause of action , in the parent-child context, or to permit that action but deny any claim based upon more remote relationships, is thus a question of policy. As explained by Justice Fleming in Suter v. Leonard (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 744, 746 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]: ‘Plaintiff’s claim, viewed in the abstract and divorced from its surroundings, carries both logical and sympathetic appeal. . . . Certain aspects of spousal relationship are similar to those of the parent-child relationship, and there can be little question of the reality of the loss suffered by a child deprived of the society and care of its parent. Nevertheless our decision must take into account considerations in addition to logical symmetry and sympathetic appeal. . . . [N]ot every loss can be made compensable in money damages, and legal causation must terminate somewhere. In delineating the extent of a tortfeasor’s responsibility for damages under the general rule of tort liability (Civ. Code, *987 § 1714), the courts must locate the line between liability and nonliability at some point, a decision which is essentially political.’ ” (Borer v. American Airlines, Inc. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 441, 446-447 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 302 , 563 P.2d 858 ].)
In my view, the courts are ill equipped to decide questions of public policy which are essentially political in nature. Such decisions should be made by the duly elected representatives of the people and, only then, after the opportunity for full legislative investigation and debate. Only through the legislative process can the conflicting public policies and the procedural safeguards appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of all of those affected be given due consideration.
Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 17, 1985. Bird, C. J., Mosk, J., and Broussard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.