Opinion ID: 1758792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusing to Extend Common Law to Recognize Parent's Consortium Claim for Child's Serious, Permanent Injury

Text: In the case now before us, the Court confronts the mirror-image of the question presented in Reagan whether parents may recover damages for loss of consortium and mental anguish when their child is severely, but not fatally, injured by a third party's tortious conduct. The Court says No, and offers as justification many of the same rationales the Court flatly rejected in Whittlesey, Sanchez and Reagan: (i) tort law cannot remedy every wrong; (ii) awarding damages in this context presents special challenges to a factfinder; (iii) recognizing filial consortium claims would not eliminate differences in the award of intangible damages for wrongful death and personal injury cases; (iv) there are insufficient benefits to justify changing the common law in Texas; and (v) several states that have recognized the child's right to loss of consortium have denied parents any reciprocal rights. None of these proffered explanationswhen weighed against our prior decisions and the growing body of law and commentary that recognize the symbiotic nature of the parent-child relationshipprovide a satisfactory justification for creating an anomaly in Texas law. Moreover, noticeably absent from the Court's analysis is any meaningful examination of Texas's consortium precedent, the importance that Texas has historically placed on the parent-child relationship, or this Court's decisions analogizing that relationship to the reciprocal nature of the husband-wife relationship. II