Berry v. Myrick, 19556
| Decision Date | 23 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 19556,19556 |
| Parties | Lucy BERRY, Appellant, v. Sammie MYRICK, Jr., and R. H. Clark Company, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Lee & Ball, Columbia, for appellant.
Robert G. Currin, Jr., of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondents.
Lucy Berry, the appellant herein, brought this action to recover damages for loss of consortium resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon her husband by reason of the negligent operation of an automobile owned by R. H. Clark Company and being driven at the time by Sammie Myrick, Jr., of both of whom are respondents herein. The respondents demurred to the complaint on the ground of legal insufficiency of facts to constitute a cause of action for loss of consortium. This is an appeal from an order sustaining the demurrer.
The appellant alleges in her complaint that her husband was injured, by reason of the negligence of the respondents, on February 9, 1968, and 'on that date and still, has constantly deprived the plaintiff of the consortium of her husband.'
In this State, we have followed the common law rule and adhered to the view that a wife does not have a cause of action for the loss of her injured husband's consortium caused by the negligence of a third person. Page v. Winter, 240 S.C. 516, 126 S.E.2d 570. Many states follow this same rule and the cases so holding are collected and set forth in 36 A.L.R.3d, commencing at page 918.
The General Assembly of this State, by an act approved June 25, 1969, which appears as Section 10--2593 in the 1972 Supplement to the Code, provided as follows:
'This section shall not be retroactive but shall be effective only on cause of action arising after June 25, 1969.'
The obvious purpose of the General Assembly in enacting the foregoing statute was to extend to the wife the right to recover for the loss of the consortium of her husband, which right existed only in favor of the husband under the common law. However, the statute was not to be retroactive and was to be effective only on a cause of action arising after June 25, 1969.
It has been held that under a statute allowing a wife's action for the loss of consortium that no such right of action exists for injuries received before the effective date of the statute. Leventhal v. Melville Shoe Corp., 110 N.H. 367, 268 A.2d 840 and Burroughs v. Jordan, 224 Tenn. 418, 456 S.W.2d 652.
In Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 124 S.E.2d 781, we held that a husband's right to sue for loss of consortium of his wife accrues when the loss of the service, society and companionship of the wife actually occurs. The rationale of this decision is applicable here. According to the appellant's complaint, the loss of the consortium of the husband actually occurred and arose on February 9, 1968, this being the time he received his personal injuries by reason of the alleged negligence of the respondents.
We quote the following from 173 A.L.R., page 755:
'In what may be termed the usual situation, where the loss of services or consortium is an immediate rather than a delayed consequence of the defendant's negligence or wrongful act causing physical injury to plaintiff's spouse, child, or employee--as in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preer v. Mims
...of the spouse has actually occurred, which has been defined as the point when the spouse sustained the injuries. See Berry v. Myrick, 260 S.C. 68, 194 S.E.2d 240 (1973). Under facts strikingly similar to those of the present case, Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 124 S.E.2d 781 (1962) held th......
-
Priola v. Paulino
...494, 503, 337 P.2d 906; and Sonbergh v. MacQuarrie, supra, 112 Cal.App.2d 771, 773--774, 247 P.2d 133; and Berry v. Myrick (1973) 260 S.C. 68, 70--72, 194 S.E.2d 240, 241--243.) The judgment is RACANELLI, P.J., and ELKINGTON, J., concur. 1 The first three causes of action included the follo......
-
Doe v. Greenville County School Dist.
...S.C. 200, 479 S.E.2d 35 (1996). At common law, a man could sue for loss of his wife's consortium, but not vice-versa. Berry v. Myrick, 260 S.C. 68, 194 S.E.2d 240 (1973). Moreover, he could sue for loss of his minor child's services and his companionship, that is, his consortium.3 E.g., Ber......
-
Albertson v. Travis, 49106
...Inc., 220 Kan. 565, 568, 552 P.2d 998 (1976). See Bromfield v. Seybolt Motors, 109 N.H. 501, 256 A.2d 151 (1969); Berry v. Myrick, 260 S.C. 68, 194 S.E.2d 240 (1973); Burroughs v. Jordan, 224 Tenn. 418, 456 S.W.2d 652 (1970), which held that where the wife's right to recover for loss of con......
-
Settlement Negotiations
...Corp ., 334 Pa. Super. 36, 482 A.2d 1067 (1984). Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-41 (1985) (no case law). South Carolina Berry v. Myrick , 260 S.C. 68, 194 S.E.2d 240 (1973). South Dakota Bitsos v. Red Owl Stores , 350 F Supp. 850 (D.S.D. 1972) (applying South Dakota law). Tennessee Swiney ......
-
Settlement negotiations
...Corp ., 334 Pa. Super. 36, 482 A.2d 1067 (1984). Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws 9‑1‑41 (1985) (no case law). South Carolina Berry v. Myrick , 260 S.C. 68, 194 S.E.2d 240 (1973). South Dakota Bitsos v. Red Owl Stores , 350 F Supp. 850 (D.S.D. 1972) (applying South Dakota law). Tennessee Swiney ......
-
Settlement Negotiations
...Corp ., 334 Pa. Super. 36, 482 A.2d 1067 (1984). Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-41 (1985) (no case law). South Carolina Berry v. Myrick , 260 S.C. 68, 194 S.E.2d 240 (1973). South Dakota Bitsos v. Red Owl Stores , 350 F Supp. 850 (D.S.D. 1972) (applying South Dakota law). Tennessee Swiney ......