Opinion ID: 2215433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 1-a Consortium

Text: Reasoning from our decision abrogating interspousal tort immunity, [4] Robert Plain asserts that a husband may recover damages from his wife for her negligent interference with any of his legally protected interests, one of which is consortium. [5] The question is whether that interest is protected as against his own spouse. A husband's interest in consortium is a right to such services as his wife voluntarily provides him, and the law protects this interest against interference by third parties. [6] However, because the husband's interest is only in services voluntarily provided him, a wife is not under a legally enforceable duty to provide such services. [7] Consequently, she cannot be held liable for either negligently or intentionally denying him consortium. [8] Were it otherwise, her estate would be liable if she had committed suicide or if she had died as a result of her own negligence in the accident giving rise to this action. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the abrogation of interspousal immunity [9] has eliminated the requirement that liability be limited to third persons, asserting: There is no question that plaintiff husband may maintain an action against his wife for his physical injuries. It follows logically from Beaudette that his claim for consortium is maintainable against his wife. She is in all ways a legal party responsible and liable for her own negligent conduct which invades her husband's legally protected interests and causes damage. However, Beaudette did not purport to create a new cause of action, or a new tort. It merely did away with a defense to pre-existing torts. Plaintiff must first show that his interest in consortium is legally protected as against his wife, which he has failed to do.