Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co.
Decision Date | 25 June 1958 |
Citation | 4 N.Y.2d 524,151 N.E.2d 898,176 N.Y.S.2d 354 |
Parties | , 151 N.E.2d 898 Josephine KRONENBITTER, Appellant, v. WASHBURN WIRE COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Abraham Kantor, New York City, for appellant.
Joseph Arthur Cohen and Sidney A. Schwartz, New York City, for respondents.
James B. Donovan, Theodore Hetzler, Jr., and DeRoy C. Thomas, New York City, for Assn. of Cas. and Surety Companies and others, amici curiae, in support of respondents' position.
The Appellate Division has unanimously affirmed an order and judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint on motion for legal insufficiency. Plaintiff sues to recover damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her husband in consequence of defendants' negligence. The complaint is based on loss of consortium. Insofar as loss of financial support by the husband enters into the claim, that is not an element of damage which pertains to the wife's cause of action but belongs to the husband.
An action for loss of consortium is not maintainable under the recent decision in Don v. Benjamin M. Knapp. Inc. (306 N.Y. 675, 117 N.E.2d 128), nor under earlier decisions (Landwehr v. Barbas, 241 App.Div. 769, 270 N.Y.S. 534, affirmed 270 N.Y. 537, 200 N.E. 306; Passalacqua v. Draper, 279 App.Div. 660, 107 N.Y.S.2d 812), notwithstanding the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. (87 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 183 F.2d 811, 23 A.L.R.2d 1366), followed in Georgia by Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, Inc. (88 Ga.App. 519, 77 S.E.2d 24) and in Iowa by (Acuff v. Schmit, 248 Iowa 272, 78, N.W.2d 480).
To decide otherwise would be contrary to principle as well as contrary to precedent. The argument that equality of the sexes calls for a change overlooks that the husband's right to damages for loss of consortium is based on outworn theory. It derives from the time when the wife was regarded in law in some respects as her husband's chattel. He was allowed damages for injury to her in much the same manner that he would have been allowed damages for the loss or injury of one of his domestic animals. In Law and Contemporary Problems (Vol. 18, pp. 219, 229), this argument of appellant is answered by Professor Jaffe: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lombardo v. D. F. Frangioso & Co.
...that he would have been allowed damages for the loss or injury of one of his domestic animals.' Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co., 4 N.Y.2d 524, 527, 176 N.Y.S.2d 354, 355, 151 N.E.2d 898, 899. Considerable legislation in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions has steadily resulted in the em......
-
Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co.
...Corp. (1960), 103 N.H. 56, 164 A.2d 579; Roseberry v. Starkovich (1963), 73 N.M. 211, 387 P.2d 321; Kronebitter v. Washburn Wire Co. (1958), 4 N.Y.2d 524, 176 N.Y.S.2d 354, 151 N.E.2d 898; Neuberg v. Bobowicz (1960), 401 Pa. 146, 162 A.2d 662; Page v. Winter (1962), 240 S.C. 516, 126 N.E.2d......
-
Hoffman v. Dautel
...N.Y.S.2d 1; La Eace v. Cincinnati, Newport & Covington Ry. Co., Inc. [Ky.1952] 249 S.W.2d 534; and Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co. [1958] 4 N.Y.2d 524, 176 N.Y.S.2d 354, 151 N.E.2d 898. Federal Circuit Court decisions following various state laws have denied the wife recovery in: Seymour ......
-
Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques
...side", New York law controls and New York does not recognize a wife's claim for loss of consortium. Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co., 4 N.Y.2d 524, 176 N.Y.S.2d 354, 151 N.E.2d 898 (1958). Mrs. Igneri's claim is governed not by the law of New York but by the general maritime law. Although ......
-
Daniel Hernandez and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna Freemantweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, plaintiffs-respondents--against--Victor L. Robles, in his official capacity as city clerk of the City of New York, defendant-appellant.
...omitted); People v. Smythe, 210 A.D.2d 887, 888 (4th Dep't 1994) (limiting spousal privilege). (45) Kronenbitter v. Washburn Wire Co., 4 N.Y.2d 524, 527 (46) Oppenheim v. Kridel, 236 N.Y. 156, 168 (1923). (47) 22 N.Y.2d 498 (1968). (48) Id. at 504. (49) Id. at 503, 508 (citation omitted); s......