De Angelis v. Lutheran Medical Center

Citation58 N.Y.2d 1053,462 N.Y.S.2d 626
Parties, 449 N.E.2d 406 Barbara DE ANGELIS, Individually and as Natural Guardian of Deirdre De Angelis and Others, Infants, Appellant, v. LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. M. Philip AMODEO, as Administrator of the Estate of Yves Le Henaff, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Thomas N. PRECIOUS et al., Respondents.
Decision Date29 March 1983
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 84 A.D.2d 17, 445 N.Y.S.2d 188, in each of these appeals should be affirmed, with costs.

In each case, a child seeks recovery in a derivative action for loss of consortium against an alleged tort-feasor who inflicted disabling injuries on one of the child's parents. Such actions, however real the loss incurred, were not recognized at common law and we find no reason to recognize such a right now. In particular, the existence of the right of a husband or wife, in view of the nature of the marital relation, to bring an action derived from injuries to his or her spouse, to whatever extent it may be said to be analogous, does not warrant extending this right to a child and certainly not on the equal protection grounds asserted by the appellants.

Duty is essentially a legal term by which we express our conclusion that there can be liability (see, generally, Green, The Duty Problem in Negligence Cases, 28 Col.L.Rev. 1014). It tells us whether the risk to which one person exposes another is within the protection of the law. In fixing the bounds of that duty, not only logic and science, but policy play an important role (Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 408, 413 N.Y.S.2d 895, 386 N.E.2d 807; Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, 45 N.Y.2d 950, 411 N.Y.S.2d 555, 383 N.E.2d 1149; Pagan v. Goldberger, 51 A.D.2d 508, 510, 382 N.Y.S.2d 549; Ortiz v. Kinoshita & Co., 30 A.D.2d 334, 336-337, 292 N.Y.S.2d 48; Prosser, Torts [4th ed], § 42, pp. 244-249).

A line must be drawn between the competing policy considerations of providing a remedy to everyone who is injured and of extending exposure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
158 cases
  • Campos v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • October 6, 2015
    ......See Gallimore v. Children's Hospital Medical Center , 67 Ohio St. 3d 244, 255, 617 N.E.2d Page 4 1052 (1993). Thus, ...502, 504, 506, 295 A.2d 862 (1972); DeAngelis v. Lutheran Medical Center , 58 N.Y.2d 1053, 1055, 449 N.E.2d 406, 462 N.Y.S.2d 626 ......
  • Campos v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • October 6, 2015
    ...... child; [3] the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and medical care; [4] the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and [5] the duty to ... St . Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center , 258 Mont. 158, 162, 852 P.2d 574 (1993); accord Villareal v. Dept . ...502, 504, 506, 295 A.2d 862 (1972); DeAngelis v. Lutheran Medical Center , 84 App. Div. 2d 17, 27, 445 N.Y.S.2d 188 (1981), aff'd, ......
  • Siciliano v. Capitol City Shows, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • April 9, 1984
    ......Lutheran Medical Center, 58 N.Y.2d 1053, 1055, 462 N.Y.S.2d 626, 627-28, 449 N.E.2d ......
  • Steiner by Steiner v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 18, 1986
    ......Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, 145 Vt. 533, 496 A.2d 939, 492 (1985), the ...543, 652 P.2d 318 (1982); DeAngelis v. Lutheran Medical Center, 84 A.D.2d 17, 445 N.Y.S.2d 188 (1981), aff'd, 58 N.Y.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT