Leffler v. Wiley
| Decision Date | 02 April 1968 |
| Citation | 15 Ohio App.2d 67,239 N.E.2d 235 |
| Parties | , 44 O.O.2d 164 LEFFLER, Appellee, et al., Appellant, v. WILEY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A wife has a legal right to recover damages for loss of consortium resulting from negligent injury to her husband. The rights of the wife are equal to those of a husband to recover for the loss of consortium resulting from negligent injury to his wife.
Richard H. Slemmer, Gahanna, for appellant.
Knepper, White, Richards & Miller, Louis E. Gerber and R. Douglas Wrightsel, Columbus, for defendants-appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County against the plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Y. Leffler, entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer.
The petition alleges that defendants-appellees negligently injured plaintiff-appellant's husband, and that she was thereby deprived of his services and consortium, and prays for judgment in the amount of $74,000. The trial court held that, although a husband can recover for the loss of his wife's services and consortium, yet a wife cannot recover for the loss of her husband's services and consortium. Plaintiff-appellant contends that the holding of the trial court deprives her of equal protection of the laws.
In Smith v. Nicholas Building Co. (1915), 93 Ohio St. 101, 112 N.E. 204, L.R.A.1916E, 700, the syllabus states:
'A wife has no right of action against a person for the loss of the consortium of her husband caused by personal injuries sustained by him through the negligence of such person.'
Judge Newman wrote the opinion in Smith. He took the position that a wife has a duty to perform household or domestic duties, and that a husband has a legal right to her services in that regard. He went on to state that 'If the wife for any reason was unable to perform them the loss was the husband's, not hers, * * *.' Judge Newman further contended that this loss of these services which 'belonged to the husband' constituted the 'gist' of the action for loss of consortium. He further stated that the husband could not recover for loss of companionship, conjugal affection, asistance, etc., 'unaccompanied by a claim for a loss of services.' On the implicit premise that a husband has no duty to perform domestic services, the court concluded that the wife had no right to such services and thus could not bring suit for loss of consortium.
Later, in its opinion, the court suggested that an injured husband recovered full damages to him in his own action, and the wife and children are therefore 'indirectly benefited by such recovery.' The court did not explain why a husband was not 'indirectly benefited' by the wife's recovery of full damages to her so as to bar a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company, 41337
...A.2d 492; Ash v. S. S. Mullen, Inc., 43 Wash.2d 345, 261 P.2d 118; Seagraves v. Legg, 147 W.Va. 331, 127 S.E.2d 605.6 Leffler v. Wiley, 15 Ohio App.2d 67, 239 N.E.2d 235, is an example of the right of recovery being granted to a wife on constitutional grounds.7 This, of course, means that t......
-
Gossett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington
...in the common law a discrimination that could not constitutionally be created by statute.' " Id. (quoting Leffler v. Wiley, 15 Ohio App.2d 67, 69, 239 N.E.2d 235 (1968)); see generally 41 Am.Jur.2d, Husband and Wife § 185 (1995) (common law doctrine of necessaries has been held to violate s......
-
Berghammer v. Smith, ADMIRAL-MERCHANTS
...Karczewski v. Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company, Northern District of Illinois, 1967, 274 F.Supp. 169, 179; and Leffler v. Wiley, 1968, 15 Ohio App.2d 67, 239 N.E.2d 235, 236; and Owen v. Illinois Baking Corp., W.D.Michigan, 1966, 260 F.Supp. 820, A rule arising out of the marriage relations......
-
Miskunas v. Union Carbide Corporation
...354 U.S. 914, 77 S.Ct. 1299, 1 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1957). Thus the relevance of Hitaffer to the case at bar remains unimpaired. 2 15 Ohio App.2d 67, 239 N.E.2d 235. ...