Appeal Court Rules Against Woman in Consortium Case

A woman who married her live-in boyfriend after he was paralyzed by a piece of falling concrete at the Manhattan Beach Pier cannot sue for loss of consortium, the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has ruled.

In overturning a decision by a Torrance judge, the appellate court said that a legal marriage is an “essential element” before a person can sue for loss of consortium. The term consortium refers to the sexual partnership and emotional support provided by a mate.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 Tuesday to close and completely seal off the 72-year-old pier and the immediate surrounding beach area Oct. 1.

The board’s move, which was opposed by Supervisor Ed Edelman, was led by Supervisor Deane Dana, who noted that the county could face more lawsuits if other people are injured on the pier. The pier needs an estimated $1.6 million to $4 million in repairs, and the county cannot afford to assume the financial burden, Dana said.

Although the pier is in Manhattan Beach, it is operated by the county and owned by the state Department of Parks and Recreation. The county now spends about $35,000 annually to maintain it.

The pier will not be closed immediately so the county can complete some minor repairs already scheduled.

The Court of Appeal ruling will probably be appealed to the state Supreme Court, said Phillip Daigneault, the woman’s attorney. The high court is expected to rule soon on a similar case involving the rights of live-in lovers.

“I’m disappointed, but not surprised,” Daigneault said. “Nor is my client. All along we felt the state Supreme Court would be the final word on this because the issue is not clear at the various Court of Appeal districts.”

The Court of Appeal ruling stems from a case filed in Torrance Superior Court by George Benda, a 46-year-old Redondo Beach resident who was rendered a paraplegic after a 150-pound concrete slab broke off the aging Manhattan Beach Pier in 1984 and struck him, severing his spinal cord. Benda was stretching under the pier before jogging on the beach.

The self-employed electrical contractor has filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by Manhattan Beach, the county and the state. The suit seeks $20 million in damages. Although the pier is in Manhattan Beach, it is operated by the county and owned by the state.

Wife Sought $5 Million

In the same lawsuit, his wife, Janet Meisenbach-Benda, sought $5 million in damages for loss of consortium. The couple were married about a year after the accident, but she asserted that before they were wed, she and Benda had lived together since 1983, bought furniture for their home from a joint bank account and did not date other people.

Attorneys for the city, county and state sought to have Meisenbach-Benda dropped as a plaintiff in the suit, but Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Abraham Gorenfeld in April denied their motion. The judge cited a San Bernardino Court of Appeal ruling that allowed an unmarried Orange County woman to sue for loss of consortium after the man she had lived with for 11 years was hit by a car and seriously injured.

The San Bernardino court said a cohabitant can sue if he or she can prove that a “stable and significant” relationship with the characteristics of a marriage exists.

But the Los Angeles court, ruling on an appeal filed by state and county attorneys, said last week that it would abide by its own 1985 ruling, which held that a legal marriage must exist before a man or woman may sue for loss of consortium. That ruling involved a case in which a woman sued after the man she had lived with for two years and had a child with died in a fight.

3-1 Ruling

Concurring in last week’s ruling were Justices George Danielson and Armand Arabian and Justice Pro Tem Terry O’Rourke. Justice Joan Klein dissented, saying she would have followed the ruling handed down in the Orange County case.

The state Supreme Court has already heard arguments in a case involving a man whose live-in lover was killed in a car accident in Pasadena in 1982.

The man sued for loss of consortium and emotional distress, but a Superior Court judge and the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled against him. The appellate court stated that “marriage is that fine bright line by which the strength of a relationship may be tested.”

In a companion case also to be decided by the state Supreme Court, a woman who married her live-in boyfriend two weeks after he was injured in a helicopter crash is seeking the right to sue for loss of consortium. The couple had lived together three years before getting married.

Times staff writer Jill Stewart contributed to this story.