## Facts

- Sixteen-year-old Andre Baxter was admitted to Huntington Memorial Hospital in August 1970 and was given general anesthesia for diagnostic procedures and possible surgery.
- Andre became unconscious and remained comatose for four months, during which he underwent fourteen neurosurgeries.
- After regaining consciousness, Andre had severe permanent impairments, including profound cognitive disability, total blindness, severe hearing impairment, and partial paralysis.
- In 1974, Andre and his parents sued the hospital and physicians for malpractice.
- The parents asserted claims for (1) expenses incurred due to the alleged malpractice and (2) damages for loss of Andre’s “support, comfort, protection, society, and pleasure,” i.e., loss of filial consortium.
- Defendants demurred to the filial-consortium causes of action; the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend.
- The parents sought writ relief; after the Court of Appeal denied relief, the California Supreme Court reviewed the matter on an original writ proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether California law recognizes a parental negligence cause of action for loss of a child’s affection, society, and companionship (filial consortium) resulting from nonfatal injury to the child.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that parents do not have a negligence cause of action for loss of filial consortium when their child is injured.
- The court declined to expand the parental cause of action beyond traditional economic components.
- Writ relief was denied, leaving intact the order sustaining demurrers to the parents’ filial-consortium claims.

## Legal Principles

- In California, a parent’s claim arising from injury to a child is not extended to recover noneconomic relational damages for loss of the child’s affection, society, or companionship.
- Policy concerns supporting denial of filial-consortium claims include the intangible and subjective nature of the loss and the risk of multiplying claims and liability arising from a single physical injury.
- Historical common-law allowances tied to a parent’s economic interest in a child’s services do not justify recognizing a modern, independent consortium-style claim for intangible familial loss.

## Conclusion

California does not permit parents to recover, in negligence, damages for loss of an injured child’s affection and society; the parental remedy remains confined to traditional economic losses rather than filial-consortium damages.


Baxter v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 3d 461 (Cal. 1977)