Evening star., 1950-05-29

Loss Of Martial Right
By Husband S Injury
Held Justifying Suit
The Court of Appeals today es-
tablished the right of woman to
sue for damages when a negli-
gent injury to her husband de-
prives her of a sexual relationship
with him.
1t was the first time the court
had acted on such case, and the
precedent was expected to be far
reaching. 1t was regarded as
more important because the right
was upheld even though the hus-
bad was protected by workmen's S
compensation.
Legal experts said the opinion
opens the way for wives to sue
for damages "for loss of consor-
tium" any time their husbands
are incapacitated through negli-
gent injury.
Nation Wide Implication.
Although the case in point dealt
with a District couple, it was re-
garded as Nationwide in impli-
cation, since the Longshoremen's
and Harbor Workers Compensa-
tion Act, under which the plain
till was insured, is the counter
part of workmen's compensation
laws Of many other States.
Judge Bennett Champ Clark
wrote the opinion and Judge
Charles Fahy concurred. Judge
Wilbur K. Miller neither assented
nor dissented.
The opinion reversed a District
Court ruling of Judge David A
Pine, who granted a motion fol-
summary judgment, but suggested
to Attorney Edgar A. Wren that
he appeal the case.
Originally. Pierce Henry Hitaf-
fer, maintenance mechanic, aged
63, and his wife, Mrs. Lucia Hitaf-
fer, sued the tArgonne Co., Inc, for
$4,000 damages for an injury Mr..
Hitaffer suffered when he fell
from a ladder in December, .1947.
Because Mr.. Hitaffer was covered
by workmen's compensation, his
part of the suit later was dropped,
but Mr.. Wren pressed the claim Of
the wife.
Suit Held Unusual.
The suit was unusual in that it
pressed for a verdict that only
once before had been allowed, and
that later overturned.
It sought "a broadening of the
enabling acts" of about 20 years
ago, which gave wives the right to
sue for injury to their own prop
erty, and to the loss of consortium
in alienation of affections. or in
willful violations. The appellate
decision found that women do
have the right to sue for loss of
their husbands companionship,
love, material services and sexual
relations when such is caused by
a negligent injury to the man.
It went further by making an
employer liable for such loss, even
though that element is not written
into the law covering the work.
mems compensation protecting the
individual.
Disputes Former Rulings.
The opinion disputed former
rulings that the wife should not
be allowed to sue, because the
husband, as nominal head of the
household, already has that right.
"The desirability of allowing the
wife this action is demonstrable
from the anomalous situation in
which we would otherwise be
placed" the court said.
For how. under any reasoning,
could we, while allowing the hus-
band the action. justify a denial
to the wife of a like protection to
an interest which is exactly the
same as his?
"And how could we justify de-
nying her the action when we al
low her a suit in cases of inten-
tional invasionS? The simple an
swer is that there can be no justi-
f1cation."
The opinion added that I'VE can
conceive of no reasons for denying
the wife this right for the reason
that in this enlightened day and
age they simply do not exist"
Logic and Reason Cited.
"On the contrary, it appears to
us that logic. reason and right are
in favor of the position we are
now taking. The medieval con-
cepts Of the marriage relation to
which other jurisdictions have re-
verted in order to reach the re-
suits which have been handed tc
us as evidence of the law have
long since ceased to have any
meaning.
ut can hardly be said that the
wife has less Of an interest in the
marriage relation than does the
husband or in these modern times
that a husband renders services o1
such a different character to the
family and household that they
must be measurably standard Of
such uncertainty that the law
cannot estimate any loss thereof
THE husband owes the same
i, degree Of love, affection, felicity
ETC., to the wife as she to him"