Claim for Loss of Parental Consortium

This memorandum addresses the legal issues associated with the claim of minors Melissa and Jason Goyette under Connecticut law against defendant Lowell Henderson for the loss of parental consortium resulting from injuries he negligently or recklessly inflicted on their mother Alice Goyette.

Summary of Facts. On April 17, 1998, Alice Goyette was walking to the school attended by Melissa and Jason when she was struck by a car driven by the defendant who was legally intoxicated (drunk). Alice has been in a coma since April 18, is unable to speak and her health may be permanently impaired by the accident.

Question Presented. Whether a cause of action for loss of parental consortium is legally valid under Connecticut law.

Conclusion. The firm should take the case and file a cause of action on behalf of Melissa and Jason for their loss of parental consortium arising out of defendant's negligence. There is no statutory law on the subject and Connecticut's Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter; however, even though lower courts have been sharply divided on the subject, the recent trend in the cases has been in the direction of recognizing a cause of action for loss of parental consortium which appears in line with modern trends around the nation. We should not, however, undertake such a case on a contingent fee basis because there is a substantial possibility we will fail which must be car

. . .
t, there is a growing tendency in the 1990s for many lower courts to recognize a cause of action by minor children for loss of parental consortium on the basis of much the same type of policy considerations that apply to causes of action for loss of spousal consortium. However, the issue is wide open in Connecticut at this time and therefore is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. In reviewing cases decided before 1983, the Federal District Court in Connecticut concluded in Clark v. Romeo, 561 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Conn. 1983), at 1210 that "the post-Hopson case law is unanimous in denying a cause of action for a child's action for a child's loss of parental consortium." In accord, among other cases, Reilly v. DiBianco, Conn. L. Tribune, Mar. 20, 1981 at 13, col. 2 (Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 1981), Camacho v. Rackcliffe, H-80-700, slip op. at 3 (D. Conn. May 5, 1981) and Shattuck v. Gulliver, 40 Conn. Supp. 95 (1984). It was accurate in the 1980s to refer, as the Court did at 1210 in the Clark case, to a majority of other states which "have denied minors a loss of consortium claim for tortious injury to parents." See Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal.3d 441, 563 P.2d 858 (1977). The Court in Clark said that "only a few
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Court Hopson, Likewise Steeves, Mahoney Lensink, Norwalk Hospital, Conn Rptr, Connecticut Court, Conclusion Appellate, Melissa Jason, Superior Court, parental consortium, loss parental, loss parental consortium, cause action, conn rptr, action loss, action loss parental, supreme court, cause action loss, loss consortium, third parties, 8 cscr, mary's hospital, st mary's hospital, conn 485 408,
Approximate Word count = 2624
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Claim for Loss of Parental Consortium