Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co.

Decision Date18 December 1956
Citation128 A.2d 330,144 Conn. 155
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesLillian LOCKWOOD v. The WILSON H. LEE COMPANY et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

W. Paul Flynn, New Haven, with whom were Charles L. Flynn, New Haven, and, on the brief, Bernard P. Kopkind, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Albert R. Moquest and L. Stewart Bohan, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Francis J. Moran, Whitneyville, and John E. McNerney, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.

DALY, Associate Justice.

The amended complaint alleges that the plaintiff's husband, Charles F. Lockwood, while employed by the named defendant, was injured as a consequence of the negligence of it and its agent, the defendant John Cronan; that her husband incurred a permanent partial or total incapacity; and that as a result of the defendants' negligence the plaintiff has been, is now, and may in the future be, deprived of the affection, care, assistance, services, support and conjugal relations to which she is entitled by virtue of the marital relationship. She seeks money damages. Each defendant demurred to the amended complaint on the ground that it was insufficient because in this state a spouse cannot maintain an action to recover damages for losses such as were alleged in the present complaint, where those losses were the result of personal injuries to the other spouse sustained at the hands of a third party. The court sustained the defendants' demurrers and, upon the failure of the plaintiff to plead over, rendered judgment for the defendants. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff claims that she has a right to recover damages in an action against a third party whose negligence caused disabling personal injuries to her spouse which resulted in the loss of consortium. She bases this contention, in part at least, upon our decisions allowing recovery for loss of consortium in an action for alienation of affections or in one for criminal conversation. 'The gist of both the action for alienation of affections and that for criminal conversation is the same, the loss of the consortium.' Valentine v. Pollak, 95 Conn. 556, 561, 111 A. 869, 872; Maggay v. Nikitko, 117 Conn. 206, 208, 167 A. 816; Hudima v. Hudyma, 131 Conn. 281, 283, 39 A.2d 890. Our reason for allowing recovery for loss of consortium in those actions is that that particular loss is the ground or foundation of each of them and without it neither action would lie. However, we have never, in an action brought by a spouse against a third party whose negligence was claimed to have caused personal injuries to the other spouse, countenanced any attempt to measure pecuniarily the loss of consortium, nor have we ever recognized in the impairment of conjugal relations, pure and simple, the foundation of such an action. The right to recover damages for disability resulting from personal injuries is personal, and it is the exclusive right of the injured spouse. Marri v. Stamford Street R. Co., 84 Conn. 9, 23, 78 A. 582, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 1042; Beckert v. Doble, 105 Conn. 88, 91, 134 A. 154. In an action for alienation of affections or criminal conversation the deprivation of consortium is an injury done directly to the plaintiff, whereas in an action sounding in negligence the loss is one sustained only indirectly as a consequence of an injury done to the plaintiff's spouse. The loss of consortium resulting from the disability of a spouse occasioned by the negligence of a third party is too remote and indirect to permit recovery for it, and hence it is distinguishable from loss of consortium in an action for alienation of affections or in one for criminal conversation. 27 Am.Jur. 114.

We recognize only one exception to the rule that the right of recovery, is personal and the exclusive right of the injured spouse. We allow a husband to recover the amount of the expenditures which he has been, or will be, compelled to make to aid in his wife's restoration from injuries occasioned her by the negligence of a third party or for services in the maintenance of the family which his wife, except for her injuries, would have performed. Hansen v. Costello, 125 Conn. 386, 389, 5 A.2d 880. The basis ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Deshotel v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 31 Julio 1958
    ...which he may obtain. Some jurisdictions, however, have denied recovery to the husband as well as to the wife. Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co., 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330, 331; Bolger v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 205 Mass. 420, 91 N.E. 389; Blair v. Seitner Dry Goods Co., 184 Mich. 304, 151 N.......
  • Lombardo v. D. F. Frangioso & Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 18 Mayo 1971
    ...v. Duke Power Co., 224 N.C. 821, 32 S.E.2d 611 (1945). Burk v. Anderson, 232 Ind. 77, 109 N.E.2d 407 (1952). Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co., 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330 (1956). Black v. United States, 263 F.Supp. 470 (D.Utah, 1967). Va.Code, tit. 55, § 55--36 (1950).2 Bolger v. Boston Elev. ......
  • Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 28 Abril 1967
    ...271 Ala. 42, 122 So.2d 153; Deshoted v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (1958), 50 Cal.2d 664, 328 P.2d 449; Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co. (1956), 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330; Coastal Tank Lines v. Canoles (1955), 207 Md. 37, 113 A.2d 82; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Village of Isle (1963)......
  • Montgomery v. Stephan, 16
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 25 Febrero 1960
    ...through action by the legislature rather than by the courts. Among other decisions involving the question is Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Company, 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330, 331, decided in 1956. Plaintiff brought her action alleging permanent partial, or total, incapacity on the part of her......
  • 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