Court Opinion

ID: 9596881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:53:54.959298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:58.809066
License: Public Domain

BRYSON, J.,
dissenting.
This vehicle accident occurred in the state of Washington. The defendant Shepler, the truck driver, is an Oregon resident and his employer, Shepler Refrigeration, Inc., is an Oregon corporation. Plaintiff and her injured husband are residents of the state of Washington.
The plaintiff brought this action in Oregon to recover damages for loss of consortium. As stated in the majority opinion, Washington, by common law decision, denies the wife a right of action for loss of consortium for injury to her husband. Ash v. S. S. Mullen, Inc., 43 Wash 2d 345, 261 P2d 118 (1953). Oregon, by statute, allows such an action. ORS 108.010. This statute establishes that all Oregon wives have the same civil rights as Oregon husbands, including the. “right of action for loss of consortium of her husband.” I fail to see how the Oregon legislature can do as much for Washington wives.
Regardless of whether we follow the Restatement (see Note 2 of the majority opinion) or the law of the place of the wrong, I do not believe we can or should bestow Oregon statutory rights for women on women of the state of Washington.
In Berghammer v. Smith, 185 NW 2d 226, 231, 232 (Iowa 1971), the same problem arose in an action for loss of consortium. The accident, occurred in Iowa *463and the plaintiff resided in Minnesota, which state, at the time, denied the plaintiff the right to bring an action for loss of consortium. The Iowa court stated:
“We hold Minnesota has the most significant —indeed, perhaps the only—relationship with plaintiff and the issue of her right to maintain an action for loss of consortium. We reach this conclusion because only Minnesota is concerned with the marital status of plaintiff and the interspousal rights and duties arising therefrom.
“Iowa has no state interest to protect * * *.
“Nor may it be said our policy recognizing a wife’s claim for loss of consortium was intended primarily to do more than extend such right to Iowa wives.

lift ft ft ft ft

“There is considerable authority that matters which depend upon the marital relationship for their solution should be decided by the law of the husband-wife domicile. See Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 63 Cal. Rptr. 31, 432 P2d 727; Wartell v. Formusa, 34 Ill.2d 57, 213 N.E.2d 544; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 103 Ariz. 562, 447 P.2d 254; Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Company, 7 Wis.2d 130, 138, 95 N.W.2d 814, 818; Thompson v. Thompson, 105 N.H. 86, 89, 193 A.2d 439.”
Obviously the plaintiff could not bring this action in her state, Washington, but the majority opinion holds that by merely stepping over the state boundary into Oregon she is then bestowed with the right given wives who are residents of the state of Oregon, which includes the right of action for loss of consortium of her husband.
There is definitely a conflict in the policy of the states of Washington and Oregon regarding the right to bring an action for loss of consortium.
I would affirm.