Opinion ID: 1758792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

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

Text: Finally, almost thirteen years ago, we decided that a child may recover damages for loss of consortium and mental anguish when a parent is severely injured by the tortious conduct of a third party. Reagan, 804 S.W.2d at 466. We found that consortium damages were recoverable in that context because a serious, permanent and disabling injury to a parent potentially visits upon the child deprivations as serious as those we recognized in Cavnar, Sanchez, and Whittlesey. Id. at 465-66 (discussing Cavnar, 696 S.W.2d at 551, Sanchez, 651 S.W.2d at 251, and Whittlesey, 572 S.W.2d at 667). We reaffirmed our commitment to preserving the parent-child relationship: While all family members enjoy a mutual interest in consortium, the parent-child relationship is undeniably unique and the wellspring from which other family relationships derive. It is the parent-child relationship which most deserves protection and which, in fact, has received judicial protection in the past. The loss of a parent's love, care, companionship, and guidance can severely impact a child's development and have a major influence on a child's welfare and personality throughout life. Id. at 466 (quoting Villareal v. State, 160 Ariz. 474, 774 P.2d 213, 217 (1989)). Finding no principled reason to accord the parent-child relationship second class status[,] we held that the unquestionable significance of that relationship compelled our recognition of a cause of action for a child's loss of consortium resulting from a parent's non-fatal injury. [1] Id. We also declined to limit the right of recovery to minor children: Consistent with our prior recognition that adult children may recover for the wrongful death of a parent, [ see Yowell v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 703 S.W.2d 630, 635 (Tex.1986)], we decline to limit the right of recovery under this cause of action to minor children. Although minors are the group most likely to suffer real harm due to a disruption of the parent-child relationship, we leave this to the jury to consider in fixing damages. Ueland [v. Reynolds Metals Co., ] 103 Wash.2d 131, 691 P.2d [190,] 195 [(Wash.1984)]; see also Audubon-Exira Ready Mix, Inc. v. Illinois Cent. Gulf Co., 335 N.W.2d 148, 152 (Iowa 1983) (even adult and married children have the right to expect the benefit of good parental advice and guidance) (citing Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc., 170 N.W.2d 632, 665 (Iowa 1969)). Id. at 466.