![]() ![]() In ROTH, three minor children sought damages "for loss of companionship, advice, destruction of the parent-child relationship, and future support, and emotional injury" after their mother suffered a severe stroke allegedly caused by her ingestion of birth control pills manufactured by one of the defendants. Twenty-one years later, the Court of Appeals addressed the same issue and it too declined to adopt the cause of action. ![]() Although the court did not adopt the cause of action sought by the appellants, it indicated a willingness to do so when faced with the proper case. This concession by the defendant was not necessarily based on a sound reading of the law however, the court did not further explore the issue. The court also stated that it was unnecessary to extend the common law since the defendant in this case conceded the children's loss was a proper item of damage in the father's potential recovery. In support of its decision, the court noted that no jurisdiction had adopted such a cause of action and, indeed, even a wife had no right of action for the loss of consortium as a result of the negligent injury of her husband. The court in ERHARDT declined the appellant's invitation to extend the common law to allow such an action. This court first addressed the issue of parental consortium in ERHARDT v. A motion for discretionary review of this decision was granted by the Court of Appeals and the case was subsequently transferred to this court for disposition on the merits. Petitioners Reynolds Metals Company and North Coast Electric Company moved in Superior Court for dismissal of this claim. The minor children, through their mother as guardian, bring this action for loss of consortium with their father as a result of his injuries. The Uelands were separated and seeking a divorce at the time of the accident. We hold that, subject to the limitations set forth in this opinion, such actions may be brought in this state.Įric Ueland, husband of Shelley Ueland and father of the two minor children, Kimberly and William Ueland, suffered severe and permanent mental and physical disabilities when struck by a metal cable during the course of employment as a lineman for Seattle City Light. When a parent is injured through the negligence of another. It is consistent with this second definition that we use the term "parental consortium". " Note, THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO SUE FOR LOSS OF A PARENT'S LOVE, CARE AND COMPANIONSHIP CAUSED BY TORTIOUS INJURY TO THE PARENT, 56 B.U. In the parent-child relationship the term consortium refers to the "loss of a parent's love, care, companionship and guidance. loss or impairment of sexual relations" in the marital relationship. «1» Loss of consortium is typically thought of as a "loss of society, affection, assistance and conjugal fellowship, and. MAJORITY OPINION: This case requires us to decide whether children have a separate cause of action for loss of parental consortium «1» HARNETIAUX on behalf of Washington Trial Lawyers Association, amici curiae for respondent.ĪUTHOR OF MAJORITY OPINION: Pearson, J. KLEIST, DAVIS & ARNOLD, INC., P.S., by PHILIP G. Supreme Court: Holding that the children had a separate right of action for loss of parental consortium, the court AFFIRMS the refusal to dismiss.ĬOUNSEL: OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY, by STEVEN A. Mattson, J., on July 14, 1983, refused to dismiss the action. Superior Court: The Superior Court for King County, No. NATURE OF ACTION: Action on behalf of two minor children seeking damages for loss of consortium with their severely injured father. NAMES OF CONCURRING OR DISSENTING JUDGES: Dore, J., dissents by separate opinion Andersen, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case. (This holding applies prospectively only.) The child's claim must be joined with the injured parent's tort claim unless the child can show that joinder was not feasible. A child has an independent right of action for loss of the love, care, companionship, and guidance of a parent tortiously injured by a third party. Torts - Juveniles - Loss of Parental Consortium - Right of Action. To satisfy evolving standards of justice, the Supreme Court may recognize a cause of action not previously recognized at common law. Courts - Common Law - New Cause of Action - Power of Supreme Court. Hydra-Pull Corporation, et al, Defendants, PENGO HYDRA-PULL CORP.ĬASE TITLE: Shelley M. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |