Should the Tort of Seduction Be Resuscitated in California?
Advocates argue that reinstating the tort of seduction will open new avenues for victims of sexual exploitation to sue their perpetrators in California, according to Brian Kabateck and Annie Martin-McDonough of Kabateck.
January 31, 2023 at 07:08 PM
8 minute read
In PracticeCalifornia Civil Code § 43.5 bars any cause of action for "seduction of a person over the age of legal consent." (§ 43.5(c)). In modern practice, § 43.5 broadly prohibits civil actions by adult victims of sexual exploitation who are coerced into sex through nonphysical means. "Seduction," used in this and similar statutes nationwide, historically meant persuading unmarried, sexually abstinent women to engage in sexual activity using influence, trickery, misrepresentation, or the like. (Richelle L. v. Roman Cath. Archbishop, 106 Cal. App. 4th 257, 267).
In 1939, § 43.5 was enacted to abolish a now-defunct civil cause of action that allowed individuals to prosecute actions for their seduction and to recover damages. Soon after enactment, in 1946, the Court of Appeal upheld a constitutional challenge to § 43.5, holding in part that the tort of seduction prohibited by § 43.5 is contrary to public policy. (Langdon v. Sayre, 74 Cal. App. 2d 41, 46, 168 P.2d 57, 60 (1946) (citing Thome v. Macken, 1943, 58 Cal.App.2d 76, 136 P.2d 116)). Since that time, no serious effort has been made to repeal § 43.5—until now.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Pa. High Court to Decide Whether Flight in a High Crime Area Can Result in an Investigative Stop
- 2EB-5 Immigration Investor Program: a Win-Win Program, or Is It?
- 3People in the News—Feb. 6, 2025—Unruh Turner, Fox Rothschild
- 4‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 5Gertrude Stein Is Right On Again
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250