Court Opinion

ID: 9853789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:54:50.24768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:06.326802
License: Public Domain

BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in the opinion but write separately to clarify the rationale for the holding in Division 1 (b). Citing an Oregon case (Erickson v. Christenson2), we hold that the husband’s loss of consortium cause of action was not based on abolished torts, but on the bishop’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty arising out of his abuse of a confidential relationship. I wish to emphasize that the key cause of action brought by the wife arises out of the confidential relationship that the bishop allegedly had in regards to her; she is not simply suing for seduction or some other cause of action that is not tied to or dependent on the spiritual confidential relationship she had with the bishop. Therefore, just as the fiduciary nature of her relationship to the bishop causes her claim against the bishop to survive, so does this fiduciary relationship also cause her husband’s claim to survive. He is not simply suing for alienation of affection caused by an adulterous relationship, which cause of action was abolished by OCGA § 51-1-17; rather, just as his spouse, he is suing for additional damages caused by the bishop’s same breach of his fiduciary duties arising out of that confidential relationship. In other words, the husband’s cause of action is simply another form of damages caused by the underlying tort (as recognized in the majority’s opinion) of breach of fiduciary duty.

 Erickson v. Christenson, 99 Ore. App. 104, 107 (781 P2d 383) (Or. Ct. App. 1989).