Connecticut declines to recognize claim for loss of parental consortium

Law Reporter, Nov 1998

Connecticut declines to recognize claim for loss of parental consortium.

Mendillo v. Board of Educ., _ A.2d _, No. 15757, 1998 WL 485306 (Conn. Aug. 25, 1998).

The Supreme Court of Connecticut held minor children do not have a cause of action for loss of parental consortium resulting from serious injury to a parent.

Here, a high school principal sued the board of education, alleging wrongful constructive discharge. Her minor children brought a derivative action for loss of parental consortium. The trial court dismissed the children's claims.

Affirming, the state high court noted that imposing third party liability of the kind sought here remains the exception rather than the rule. Those decisions that have extended a tortfeasor's liability to a third party rely heavily on policy considerations. The court said its reluctance to impose liability in such cases is based on the risks of creating unlimited liability and affecting conduct in ways that are undesirable as a matter of policy.

Here, the court concluded public policy weighed against recognizing a cause of action for loss of parental consortium. The court said doing so would (1 ) require arbitrary limitations in order to avoid creating a practically unlimited class of potential plaintiffs, (2) impose an added economic burden on society, (3) create a risk of double recovery by entitling both the parent and the child to compensation for the disruption of their relationship, and (4) go against the weight of judicial authority in the nation.

The court added that there are significant differences between loss of spousal consortium claims-which are recognized by the jurisdiction-and loss of parental consortium claims. First, the judicial trend is in favor of spousal consortium claims. Second, in any given case, there will be only one spousal consortium claim. By contrast, there would be as many claims for loss of parental consortium as there are minor children. Finally, spouses can choose whether to bring their consortium claim, thereby subjecting themselves to the opposing party's intrusion into the details of the spousal relationship. A minor child, however, cannot make such a choice; it would be made for him or her.

[Comment: See Giuliani r. Guiler, 951 S.W2d 318 (Ky. 1997), 40 ATLA L. Rep. 292 (Oct. 1997). There, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held minor children have a cause of action for loss of parental consortium due to another's negligence. *Ann B. Oldfather and *Jennifer Jordan Hall, both of Louisville, Ky., represented plaintiffs.]

[Documents in Giuliani are available through the Court Documents section at p. 356, courtesy of Ms. Oldfather.]