Court Opinion

ID: 9718952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:38:43.93669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.718825
License: Public Domain

PRYOR, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling with respect to the claim for loss of consortium. The notice requirement of D.C.Code 1981, § 12-309 could be viewed, as the majority holds, as being satisfied by timely written notice of the alleged primary tort. However, a loss of consortium is a related but separate cause of action. Given the unambiguous language of the statute, I do not think we are free to interpret it broadly and thereby alter its meaning. Rather, I believe that Boone v. District of Columbia, 294 F.Supp. 1156 (D.D.C.1968), which we have cited in the past, correctly analyzes the problem.
I agree with the majority’s opinion in all other respects.