Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatuteappealmotionsummary judgmentmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice
tortplaintiffattorneytrialmotionmalpracticerespondentappellant

Related Cases

In re Rose Lee Ann L., 307 Ill.App.3d 907, 718 N.E.2d 623, 241 Ill.Dec. 52
View Case »
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 480 B.R. 145
View Case »
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1, 38 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 124, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,396, 53 USLW 4903, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1297
View Case »
The Florida Bar re Ines, 718 So.2d 779, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S478
View Case »
In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury (II), 640 F.2d 49, 6 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 616
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Meighan v. Shore, 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 744, 63 USLW 2755

Facts

Joan Meighan sought legal representation for her husband, Dr. Clement Meighan, who was a victim of medical malpractice. During their consultation, the attorney, Samuel Shore, informed them that he was only representing Dr. Meighan and did not discuss the possibility of a loss of consortium claim with Joan. After more than a year, they learned of this potential claim, but by then, the statute of limitations had expired. Joan subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against Shore for failing to inform her of her rights.

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.

Issue

Did the attorney owe a duty to inform the spouse of the potential claim for loss of consortium, and was the spouse's claim against the hospital for negligent infliction of emotional distress viable?

The principal issue framed in respondent's motion and the opposition was whether respondent owed a duty to inform appellant of her right to pursue a cause of action, or to alert her to the need to consult another attorney about it.

Rule

An attorney may owe a duty to a non-client if the non-client is closely related to the client and the attorney is aware of the potential claims that the non-client may have.

The determination of duty is primarily a question of law. [Citations.] It is the court's ‘expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’

Analysis

The court determined that the attorney had a duty to inform Joan Meighan of her potential claim for loss of consortium, as both spouses consulted the attorney regarding the personal injury action. The court emphasized that the attorney's failure to discuss this with Joan, despite her being present during the consultation, constituted a breach of duty. However, the court also noted that Joan's claim against the hospital was not viable due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Given the particular circumstances of this case, and assuming that appellant's evidence matches her proofs in opposition to the motion, we conclude that respondent had that duty. The trial court erred in ruling that he did not.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in favor of the attorney, establishing that he had a duty to inform the spouse of her potential claim for loss of consortium. However, it upheld the dismissal of the spouse's claim against the hospital for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. It pertains to the peculiar tort of loss of consortium, where both spouses consult an attorney with respect to a personal injury suffered by one of them and the attorney knows or could readily ascertain that the other spouse has a potential claim for loss of consortium, and where that spouse is unaware of his or her rights.

Who won?

Joan Meighan prevailed in her appeal against the attorney, as the court found that he had a duty to inform her of her rights regarding loss of consortium.

In this case, appellant and her husband learned of appellant's entitlement to pursue an action for loss of consortium. By that time, the right had become barred against the health care providers.

You must be