Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu

Personal Injury Newsletter

Loss of Consortium: A Derivative Action in Most Jurisdictions

Depending on the jurisdiction, spouses, children, and parents may be able to recover for a “loss of consortium” in personal injury and wrongful death actions. Some states have extended the availability of loss of consortium damages to other parties, including grandparents and non-married cohabitants. Note, however, that the status of the law with respect to this issue varies considerably among states.

As a general proposition, loss of consortium damages seek to compensate an individual for the loss of affection, care, companionship, love and support which may result from an injury to a loved one. For example, suppose Winston is severely injured by a wrongdoer. In a subsequent personal injury lawsuit, Winston will likely sue for damages resulting from his physical injures. In addition, in jurisdictions that permit it, Winston’s spouse, for example, may also sue the wrongdoer to compensate her for the loss of consortium she suffers as a result of Winston’s injuries.

Majority Rule: Derivative Action

The vast majority of jurisdictions categorize a legal claim for loss of consortium damages as a “derivative” action. This means that recovery in the suit for loss of consortium damages depends on the success of the injured family member’s own action. If the injured party’s claim fails, then the loss of consortium claim must also fail.

As a consequence of its derivative nature, a claim for loss of consortium damages may be defeated by any defense that would prevent recovery by the injured party. For example, many jurisdictions recognize the doctrine of “comparative negligence.” Though application of the doctrine varies by state, comparative negligence systems generally operate to reduce a plaintiff’s damages by his or her percentage of fault.

To illustrate, assume that Damien negligently drives through a stop light and collides with Peggy, but Peggy contributes to the accident by driving inattentively. If a jury determines that Peggy was 40% negligent and Damien was 60% negligent, Peggy’s damage award will be reduced by 40%. However, in “modified” comparative negligence jurisdictions, Peggy’s award may be completely barred if her negligence passes a threshold level (e.g., 50% or more at fault).

With respect to loss of consortium awards, a majority of jurisdictions hold that the fault of the physically injured party will likewise either reduce or bar recovery. Therefore, in the example above, if Peggy’s husband seeks to recover for loss of consortium, his award will also be reduced by 40%.

  • Franchisors Might be Liable for Franchisee Actions
    An increasing array of goods and services are offered through “franchises.” Franchising is not a new concept, but it has exploded in popularity; according to statistics compiled by Price Waterhouse Coopers in 2005 (the... Read more.
  • Personal Injury and Defective Products
    Product or products liability is the area of personal injury law concerning liability for injuries caused by “defective” products. “Defective” products include products that are “unreasonably... Read more.
  • Design Defects and Product Liability Law
    “Product liability” is the area of the law enabling recovery for those injured by defective products. Some commentators suggest it reflects a balance between the benefits that society as a whole reaps from technological... Read more.
  • What Used Car Owners Should Know About Faulty Seat Belts
    Car manufacturers will voluntarily recall certain cars when faulty car parts cause injuries or death. Several manufacturers have recalled cars because of faulty seat belts and belt failures. Lawyers and consumer groups such as... Read more.
Personal Injury News Links
Share This Page:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn