Loss of Consortium: Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained
![handle is hein.journals/cumlr15 and id is 181 raw text is: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: PARADISE LOST,
PARADISE REGAINED
In the law of torts, a cause of action for loss of consortium has
existed for centuries.' As our society has progressed, the term
loss of consortium has been redefined to recognize and meet
current social and judicial realities. With changing social pat-
terns and moral attitudes,2 loss of consortium, rather than be-
coming obsolete, has become flexible enough to include not
only the traditional right of the husband, but also the rights of
the wife,3 parent,4 child,5 and most recently, the nonmarital co-
habiting partner.6
This Comment traces the evolution of the right to maintain a
cause of action for the loss of consortium. Loss of consortium is
defined, and the original common-law and modern theories of
recovery are examined. Emphasis is centered on the gradual
shifting from the concept of proprietary entitlement to the more
recent recognition of relational interests as the basis for deter-
mining the prerequisites for the maintenance of such an action.
I. DEFINITION
Various attempts have been made over the years to define
consortium. At early common law, the husband was deemed to
have lost consortium when he lost the company of his wife,
which is only a damage and loss to himself, for which he shall
have this action [of per quod consortium amszt] . . . . 7 The term
consortium was used to designate the husband's legal right to
the wife's performance of the duties and obligations which she
assumed when she entered the marriage. This right was propri-
etary in nature, and, as such, it include[d] the right to society,
companionship, and conjugal affection . . . . I The consor-
tium to which husbands were entitled was prescribed accord-
I W. PROSSER, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS § 124 (4th ed. 1971).
2 See bfra notes 156-59 and accompanying text.
3 Eg., Swartz v. United States Steel Corp., 293 Ala. 439, 304 So. 2d 881 (1974).
4 E.g., Horgan v. Pacific Mills, 158 Mass. 402, 33 N.E. 581 (1893).
5 See, e.g., Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc., 381 Mass. 507, 413 N.E.2d 690
(1980).
6 See Butcher v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 3d 58, 188 Cal. Rptr. 503 (1983).
7 Guy v. Livesey, 79 Eng. Rep. 428 (1618).
8 Marri v. Stamford St. R.R., 84 Conn. 9, 78 A. 582, 583 (1911), overmledon othergrounds,
Hopson v. Saint Mary's Hosp., 176 Conn. 485, 408 A.2d 260 (1979).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/cumlr15&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Loss of Consortium: Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most