Meighan v. Shore

In Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, a husband and wife attended an appointment with an attorney regarding a possible medical malpractice action on behalf of the husband. The attorney did not inform the wife that she had a possible claim for loss of consortium. When the wife eventually discovered that she had such a claim, the statute of limitations barred it. The wife then brought a professional negligence action against the attorney. In holding that the attorney had a duty to the wife even though she was not his client, the court focused on how the wife's claim was closely tied to that of her husband's as well as the fact that she visited the attorney with her husband. The court found a wife had no viable bystander cause of action when she accompanied her husband, who was experiencing chest pains, to the hospital; after tests did not definitively show he had suffered a heart attack, the attending physician told her he was not having a heart attack, and she went home; the next day the husband underwent more tests; the wife returned to the hospital and discovered that her husband had indeed suffered a heart attack. The court held that the facts did not "satisfy the witness and awareness requirement of Thing," and found the closest case on point to be Goldstein. (34 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1046.)