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

Heading: Extending Common Law to Permit Wife's Separate Consortium Claim

Text: Texas, like most other jurisdictions, initially limited consortium damages to a husband's claim arising out of injury to the marital relationship. See Garrett v. Reno Oil Co., 271 S.W.2d 764, 768 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (refusing to recognize wife's reciprocal claim for consortium damages); see also Reagan, 804 S.W.2d at 473-75 (Hecht, J., dissenting) (chronicling history of consortium claims). Although the Garrett court acknowledged that recognizing a wife's reciprocal cause of action was in accord with the broad principle of justice motivating a change in the common-law rule, it nevertheless declined to adopt such a change, opting instead to follow the majority rule until such time as legislation might effect a change. Garrett, 271 S.W.2d at 766-67. This Court criticized the Garrett court's decision for refusing to recognize a wife's claim for loss of consortium, calling it an abdication of judicial responsibility: Providing either spouse with a cause of action for loss of consortium would allow us to keep pace with modern society by recognizing that the emotional interests of the marriage relationship are as worthy of protection from negligent invasion as are other legally protected interests. Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S.W.2d 665, 668 (Tex.1978). Based on this reasoning, we held that either spouse has a cause of action for loss of consortium that might arise as a result of an injury caused to the other spouse by a third party tortfeasor's negligence. Id. Our decision, we noted, brought Texas in line with the majority of jurisdictions and corrected a paradox in the law. Id.