Opinion ID: 1061048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: comparative fault loss of consortium

Text: Having determined that a new trial is required, in the interests of judicial economy, we deem it necessary to resolve a question of first impression  whether, under comparative fault principles, the recovery of a spouse claiming loss of consortium should be reduced or barred by the fault of the physically injured spouse. We begin our analysis with a brief review of the law in this State as it relates to loss of consortium. In Tennessee, despite being a separate claim from that of an injured spouse for other damages, loss of consortium is also a derivative claim in that the physical injuries or incapacities of one's spouse give rise to and establish the claim. Jackson v. Miller, 776 S.W.2d 115, 117 (Tenn. App. 1989); see also Swafford v. City of Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 178 (Tenn. App. 1987). In contrast to the Tennessee approach, a small number of jurisdictions view a claim for loss of consortium as an essentially different and independent cause of action from the physically injured spouse. Based on that premise, those jurisdictions apply the rule that the recovery awarded the spouse claiming loss of consortium is not affected by the fault of the physically injured spouse. [2] The clear majority of jurisdictions, however, hold that a loss of consortium award must be reduced, and may be barred, by the comparative fault of the physically injured spouse. [3] Courts following the majority rule regard a claim for loss of consortium as derivative for purposes of comparative fault, and explain their rationale as follows: [T]here must be a tort which gives rise to a cause of action that must be maintained by the [physically] injured spouse in order for the non-injured spouse to claim a loss of consortium. In other words, the loss of consortium claim is dependent upon the negligent injury of the other spouse who has the primary tort cause of action. Mist v. Westin Hotels, Inc., 738 P.2d at 90. While acknowledging that each spouse is equal and independent and suffers a personal loss when the other is injured, these courts emphasize that does not alter the fact that the basis for recovery for loss of consortium is interference with the continuance of a healthy and happy marital life and injury to the conjugal relation. Eggert v. Working, 599 P.2d at 1391. According to the majority of jurisdictions, reducing the recovery of a spouse claiming loss of consortium in proportion to the fault of the physically injured spouse is the simplest and easiest way to achieve a just result and insure that a loss resulting from an accident is distributed among those whose negligence caused it. Id. Fostering family harmony is another rationale for the majority approach, which was articulated by the Colorado Supreme Court as follows: If a claim for loss of consortium were viewed as totally independent of the other spouse's personal injury claim, there would be no reason to preclude one spouse from suing another for loss of consortium or to prohibit the primary tortfeasor sued in a consortium claim from impleading the spouse who suffered the personal injuries. Placing one spouse in an adversarial relationship to the other over the latter's claim for loss of consortium introduces an element of legal conflict into the marriage that, far from contributing to marital harmony, will most likely have the effect of fostering discord between the parties. The derivative approach avoids much of this potential for conflict, since the recovery on a consortium claim is dependent solely on the determination of the relative degrees of negligence of the defendant and the spouse who sued for the personal injuries. Lee v. Colorado Dept. of Health, 718 P.2d at 232. Because we are persuaded that the majority rule is the better reasoned rule and is consistent with prior Tennessee decisions describing a claim for loss of consortium as derivative, and consistent with our purpose in adopting comparative fault which was to achieve fairness, McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d at 58, we conclude that the majority view, which holds that the fault of the physically injured spouse either reduces or bars recovery on the other spouse's loss of consortium claim, should be adopted as the law in this State. Applying the majority rule upon retrial will result in a reduction of Hoyt Tuggle's recovery for loss of consortium if Fannie Tuggle is determined to be less than 50 percent at fault. However, both Hoyt and Fannie Tuggle will be unable to recover if Fannie Tuggle is determined by a jury to be 50 percent or more at fault.