Case Title: Harris v. Sherman

Citation: 167 Vt. 613, 708 A.2d 1348

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Harris v. Sherman  (97-082); 167 Vt. 613; 708 A.2d 1348

[Filed 11-Mar-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-082

                             OCTOBER TERM, 1997

John and Shannon Harris         }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     Lamoille Superior Court
                                }
William Sherman and Joseph      }
Donna d/b/a J & D Transport     }     DOCKET NO. 104-5-96Lecv

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Shannon Harris appeals the Lamoille Superior Court's
  dismissal of her loss of consortium claim premised on personal injuries
  sustained by her husband John Harris.  The court granted summary judgment
  for defendants and dismissed the claim because, at the time of the
  accident, Shannon and John were engaged to be married, but not yet legally
  wed.  Plaintiff argues on appeal that 12 V.S.A. § 5431, which provides that
  "[a] loss of consortium [claim] may be brought by either spouse" affords
  relief not only to persons formally married at the time of injury, but also
  to persons engaged to be married at the time of the accident who marry
  prior to commencement of the action.  We affirm.

       The underlying facts are not in dispute.  In May of 1995, John Harris
  allegedly sustained injury in an automobile accident with defendant,
  William Sherman.  At the time of the accident, John and Shannon were
  engaged to be married; approximately two months later, they became legally
  wed.  John Harris later sued defendants alleging negligent operation and
  maintenance of their automobile, and based on those injury claims, Shannon
  Harris claimed loss of consortium. Defendants moved for summary judgment on
  the consortium claim on the grounds that 12 V.S.A. § 5431 does not allow
  recovery for loss of consortium arising from injury sustained before
  marriage.  Defendants argued that the loss of consortium statute was
  enacted for the sole purpose of extending to women the substantive right to
  claim for loss of consortium, see Whitney v. Fisher, 138 Vt. 468, 469,