Roger Hedgecock was mayor of San Diego 30 years ago, but he’s still involved in city politics. Sure, he was forced from office amid scandal and eventually pleaded guilty to several counts of perjury… but that didn’t stop him from having a successful right-wing talk radio show, because of course he did.

Republicans expect city services too, and Hedgecock is suing the city of San Diego because he alleges it did not perform a basic governmental function: making sidewalks safe. Hedgecock contends that in 2015 his wife tripped on a broken portion of sidewalk that was elevated because of a tree. She fell, and severely damaged her silicone breast implants. Eventually his wife required replacement surgery.

I’m a liberal, so that means I am contractually obligated to not have a problem when people sue the government for shoddy upkeep. We can quibble about whether San Diego has a duty to make the sidewalks safe for a person with reasonably durable breasts, or if there’s a higher standard. But if Cynthia Hedgecock, Roger’s wife, has a case, I have no problem with her seeking compensation for her enhanced injuries.

But Roger Hedgecock is a co-plaintiff in this lawsuit. I’ll let the San Diego Union-Tribune explain:

Roger Hedgecock is a co-plaintiff because he suffered “the loss of support, service, love, companionship, society, affection, relations and solace from his wife.” The suit says he had to stay at home and help his wife every day with her recovery, prompting him to seek compensation for his “own loss of income and the loss of consortium with his wife.”

I’m not a huge fan of “loss of consortium” claims to begin with. The cause of action traces back to a time when women were basically chattel who could not sue on their own for damages.

Even as we’ve updated the law to include “spouses” — in California, loss of consortium requires a valid marriage license — the non-economic damages like “love” and “solace” from an injured spouse seems like something that should be on the tort reform chopping block.

Maybe in a situation where your partner is actually dead, maybe then your loss of a life mate should be considered an additional damage to whatever wrongful death money you are getting. But in most cases, diminished “companionship” shouldn’t accrue to the spouse. If the victim wants to press a claim of “now my spouse and I can’t do it,” that seems appropriate. But having special damages for the spouse in that situation just seems anachronistic.

And I don’t see how you can make a more gross loss of consortium claim than one where you claim diminished “relations” because your wife’s fake breasts burst. The mere fact that you think you have any “standing” in the case of your wife’s implants versus gravity is kind of why silicone-industrial complex feels flawed.

The city of San Diego plans to fight this lawsuit in court. Apparently, that’s rare. The city usually settles sidewalk injury claims. And apparently, sidewalks in San Diego are concrete death traps:

Damaged city sidewalks have been a controversial topic this spring, with the city recently paying nearly $5 million to a bicyclist launched 28 feet by a raised sidewalk in Del Cerro… After the City Council approved that settlement on March 7, Councilman David Alvarez renewed his previous requests for a new policy shifting the responsibility of repairing sidewalks almost entirely to the city. Alvarez says the existing policy, which makes adjacent property owners responsible for repairs in all but a small number of circumstances, has resulted in too many damaged sidewalks and large injury payouts.

Councilman Alvarez is a Democrat. I wonder how the right-wing talk show circuit would react to the government taking responsibility for sidewalk repairs, and raising property taxes to cover the fact that private owners cannot be trusted to maintain a high standard of safety?

Hmm… Stay classy, San Diego.

Hedgecock suit says sidewalk fall ruptured wife’s breast implants [San Diego Union-Tribune]