Opinion ID: 1835715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: loss of consortium claim

Text: In their second assignment of error, the Ericksons argue that the district court erred when it dismissed, on a directed verdict, George's loss of consortium claim. Damages for loss of consortium represent compensation for a spouse who has been deprived of rights to which he or she is entitled because of the marriage relationship, namely, the other spouse's affection, companionship, and assistance and particularly his or her conjugal society. [19] Although loss of consortium is a personal legal claim which is separate and distinct from those claims belonging to the injured spouse, [20] a loss of consortium claim derives from the harm suffered by the injured spouse. [21] The rights of recovery by the uninjured spouse are based upon the injured spouse's right to recover for direct injuries. [22] Not only must there be an injury to the injured spouse, but also there must be a compensable injury, that is, an injury for which the defendant is liable. [23] In this case, George's recovery for a loss of consortium claim is dependent upon the success of Shari's underlying tort claim. Because George's right to recover for loss of consortium is derivative of his wife's claim, and she did not recover, he likewise cannot recover.