Hopkins v. Blanco
| Decision Date | 22 May 1974 |
| Citation | 320 A.2d 139,457 Pa. 90 |
| Parties | Lorraine HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gumersindo BLANCO, M.D., Alberto Adam, M.D., and Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
David R. Scott, Francis E. Shields, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, John J. Dautrich, White & Williams, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Keith S. Erbstein, J. E. Beasley, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether a wife may recover damages in Pennsylvania for loss of her husband's consortium. The background of the case is this.
John B. Hopkins was a patient in the Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelphia 1 under the care of Dr. Gumersindo Blanco and Dr. Alberto Adam. Subsequently, Hopkins instituted an action against these physicians and the hospital for damages, alleging that due to the negligence of the physicians and the hospital he suffered bladder and bowel incontinence, paraplegia, and malfunction of his sexual organs.
At or about the same time, Lorraine Hopkins, wife of the said John B. Hopkins, instituted a separate action on her own behalf against the same parties seeking damages for the loss of her husband's consortium. The defendants, Blanco and Adam, filed preliminary objections to the complaint in the nature of a demurrer which the trial court sustained and then dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed this order and remanded the action for trial in consolidation with the action of John B. Hopkins, the husband. See 224 Pa.Super. 116, 302 A.2d 855 (1973). We granted allocatur and now affirm the order of the Superior Court.
The trial court relying on Brown v. Glenside Lumber & Coal Company, 429 Pa. 601, 240 A.2d 822 (1968), and Neuberg v. Bobowicz, 401 Pa. 146, 162 A.2d 662 (1960), ruled that a wife may not recover in Pennsylvania for the loss of her husband's consortium. The Superior Court in reversing this ruling reasoned that since a husband has a viable right to recover for the loss of his wife's consortium in Pennsylvania, then Art. 1, § 27, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted May 18, 1971, mandates the wife now receive a similar right.
In Neuberg v. Bobowicz, supra, this Court examined the question of the wife's right to recover for the loss of her husband's consortium and decided such recovery should not be permitted. We based our conclusion in great part on the fact that the husband's right to recover for such a loss has its foundation in the common law concept that the wife was his property and he had an interest in her services, and that this view has survived as an anomaly since the common law concept of a 'wife' is no longer valid. Hence, the Court concluded the right should not be extended.
Lorraine Hopkins argues however, as she did in the Superior Court, that with the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, if the husband is allowed to recover for the loss of consortium, to fulfill the mandate of the Constitution, the wife must also be given the same right. The Constitution provides:
'Prohibition against denial or abridgment of equality of rights because of sex
'Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.'
The obvious purpose of the Amendment was to put a stop to the invalid discrimination which was based on the sex of the person. The Amendment gave legal recognition to what society had long recognized, that men and women must have equal status in today's world. See Conway v. Dana, Pa., 318 A.2d 324 (1974). We agree that if the husband may recover for loss of consortium, to deny the wife an equal right would be invalid under the Pennsylvania Constitution. To draw such a distinction would have no rational or proper foundation at law, and would clearly be a form of invalid discrimination based strictly on sex. It would also be unfair. Today a husband and wife are equal partners in a marital relationship, and, as such, should be treated equally under the law with respect to that relationship.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital
... ... Action for Loss of Consortium, 74 A.L.R.3d 805; DeMarines ... v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 433 F.Supp. 1047 ... (D.C.Pa.1977); Hopkins v. Blanco, 457 Pa. 90, 320 ... A.2d 139 (1974); Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla.1971); ... Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill.2d 406, 170 N.E.2d 881, 86 ... ...
-
Steiner by Steiner v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania
...for loss of his wife's consortium, but also permits a wife to seek damages for loss of consortium of her husband. Hopkins v. Blanco, 457 Pa. 90, 320 A.2d 139 (1974). Spousal consortium includes society, association, companionship, comfort and affection, 1 Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Deat......
-
Pahle v. Colebrookdale Tp.
...Johns-Manville Corp., 547 Pa. 402, 408, 690 A.2d 1146 (1997); Hopkins v. Blanco, 224 Pa.Super. 116, 302 A.2d 855 (1973), aff'd. 457 Pa. 90, 320 A.2d 139 (1974); Bedillion v. Frazee, 408 Pa. 281, 284-285, 288, 183 A.2d 341 (1962); Kelley v. Township of Mayberry, 154 Pa. 440, 26 A. 595 (1893)......
-
Manzitti v. Amsler
...v. Shin Shen Wu, 343 Pa.Super. 452, 495 A.2d 552 (1985); Hopkins v. Blanco, 224 Pa.Super. 116, 302 A.2d 855 (1973), aff'd, 457 Pa. 90, 320 A.2d 139 (1974); Little v. Jarvis, 219 Pa.Super. 156, 280 A.2d 617 (1971); Elser v. Union Paving Co., 167 Pa.Super. 62, 74 A.2d 529 (1950). The rational......