Justices Won’t Let Man Sue Over Death of Live-In Girlfriend

The California Supreme Court, refusing to extend unmarried cohabitants a right that the law grants to married couples, Thursday barred a single man from suing for the negligence-related accidental death of his live-in girlfriend.

The justices, in a 6-1 decision, rejected a suit for emotional distress and loss of companionship brought by Richard C. Elden, who survived a car crash that took the life of his companion, Linda Eberling, in Pasadena in 1982.

The decision was the court’s first under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas in a major case seeking new rights for unmarried persons.

In previous decisions, the court in some instances has recognized novel legal claims sought by unmarried persons--most notably in the 1976 case of actor Lee Marvin in which the justices upheld contracts between unmarried cohabiting couples for dividing property or providing support.

Such rulings were left intact under Thursday’s decision--but the tone of the ruling was markedly different from those issued under the court previously when it was dominated by liberals.

The justices said the state has a “strong interest” in promoting marriage that would be inhibited by giving unmarried cohabitants the same rights married persons have to sue in such circumstances.

Further, it said, allowing such lawsuits would impose on the courts the “intolerable burden” of determining when such relationships were sufficiently “stable and significant” to justify a damage award.

“Our emphasis on the state’s interest is not based on anachronistic notions of morality,” Justice Stanley Mosk wrote for the court. “The policy favoring marriage is rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.”

In dissent, Justice Allen E. Broussard criticized the majority for clinging to the “untenable notion” that only married couples can create families that promote society’s interests. Unmarried persons should be permitted to show in individual cases that their relationship is the virtual equivalent of marriage, he said.

Broussard noted that the decision would preclude gays or lesbians, who cannot legally marry, from bringing suit over the death of a lover.

“The categorical exclusion of same-sex couples particularly highlights the injustice of an approach that recognizes only those commitments ratified by the state,” he said.

Driver Sued

In the case before the court, Elden brought suit against Robert L. Sheldon, driver of the other car in the accident, charging negligence and seeking damages.

Elden’s claim of emotional distress was based on a 1968 decision by the court holding that a mother who witnessed the fatal injury of her daughter could collect damages for the shock and injury to her nervous system that she suffered. One of the requirements set down by the court then was that the plaintiff and victim in such suits be “closely related.”

The plaintiff also asserted a “loss of consortium” from Eberling’s death, seeking the same kind of legal redress that married persons have won for the loss of affection, companionship and sexual relations in the negligence-related death of a spouse.

Elden’s suit was dismissed in Los Angeles Superior Court and the dismissal upheld by a state Court of Appeal.

‘Significant Relationship’

In seeking review by the state Supreme Court, Elden claimed that he had established a “stable and significant relationship” with Eberling that was parallel to marriage. But the court rejected the contention in the 22-page opinion by Mosk.

The justices acknowledged that there had been a “dramatic increase” in the number of couples who live together in the United States without formal marriage and that they often share financial resources and expenses, just as husband and wife.

But, Mosk wrote, there was a need to “draw a bright line” in the law to bar such suits by unmarried persons, not only to uphold the institution of marriage but to prevent the courts from becoming enmeshed in the difficult task of weighing relationships to see which were adequately significant to show a de facto marriage.