Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MAURA v. HARDWICK, B236399. (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals of California Number: incaco20121114044 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2012
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ASHMANN-GERST, J. On May 3, 2011, Joyce Maura, Kailyn Maura, and Mathew Maura, who are minors, filed a lawsuit for loss of parental consortium arising out of alleged injury to their mother, Mayra Cerna, against defendants and respondents Joseph A. Hardwick, David L. Sincavage, Jr., Leonard Y. Herman, and Los Angeles Doctors Corporation, LP doing business as L.A. Metropolitan Medical Center. Defendants demurred and moved to strike the minors' claims p
More

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

On May 3, 2011, Joyce Maura, Kailyn Maura, and Mathew Maura, who are minors, filed a lawsuit for loss of parental consortium arising out of alleged injury to their mother, Mayra Cerna, against defendants and respondents Joseph A. Hardwick, David L. Sincavage, Jr., Leonard Y. Herman, and Los Angeles Doctors Corporation, LP doing business as L.A. Metropolitan Medical Center. Defendants demurred and moved to strike the minors' claims pursuant to the California Supreme Court's holding in Borer v. American Airlines, Inc. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 441, 444 (Borer) [barring children's claims for loss of consortium]. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer and dismissed the minors from the action.1 The minors appeal, seeking "a change in the law for minor children who are presently barred by the California Supreme Court decision in Borer . . . from recovering damages for their own losses to their parent-child relationships when one, or even both parents, suffers non-fatal injuries caused by the negligence of another."

As the parties agree, Borer, supra, 19 Cal.3d at page 444, bars the minors from asserting claims for their own losses in their parent-child relationship with their mother. We are bound by the California Supreme Court's decision. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455; Nix v. Preformed Line Products Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 ["Decisions of the Supreme Court that have never been reversed or modified are binding [citation]; we must follow the holding in Borer. It is not the function of an intermediate court to reexamine a Supreme Court decision for the purpose of enunciating and enforcing a different rule of law"]; Tullai v. Homan (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187 [the minors' contention that Borer should be reconsidered must be addressed in the Supreme Court].)

It follows that we affirm.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Defendants are entitled to costs on appeal.

DOI TODD, Acting P. J. and CHAVEZ, J., concurs.

FootNotes


1. The mother remains a plaintiff in the action.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer