Court Opinion

ID: 9650854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:53:24.896395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:07.874612
License: Public Domain

Barney, C.J.,
dissenting. For the reasons so cogently stated by Chief Justice Schaefer dissenting in Dini v. Naiditck, 20 Ill. 2d 406, 431, 170 N.E.2d 881, 893 (1960), and cited in Baldwin v. State, 125 Vt. 317, 320, 215 A.2d 492, 494 (1965), I do not favor the concept of consortium damages as a separate item of recovery. Moreover, I find no compelling justification for dis-affirming the holding in McAdam v. Wrisley, 134 Vt. 19, 20, 349 A.2d 886 (1975), particularly since this accident preceded both the enactment of 12 V.S.A. § 5431 (authorizing actions for loss of consortium by either spouse), and the McAdam holding. 1 V.S.A. § 213; Woods v. Shumway, 134 Vt. 242, 244, 356 A.2d 529, 530-31 (1976).