Wagner v. International Harvester Company, 4-74 Civ. 642.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-74 Civ. 642.,4-74 Civ. 642. |
| Citation | 455 F. Supp. 168 |
| Parties | Charles P. WAGNER and Anne Wagner, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BRECKENRIDGE ELECTRIC, INC., and Arnold's Equipment, Inc., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Robert R. Barth, and Robert L. Meller, Jr., Best & Flanagan, Minneapolis, Minn., together with Gary W. Hoch, Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson, Adamson, Flaskamp & Brennan, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.
Ann J. McGee, Castor, Ditzler & Klukas, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant and third-party plaintiff International Harvester Co.
Charles E. Gillin, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, Minn., for third-party defendant Arnold's Equipment, Inc.
There was no appearance for third-party defendant Breckenridge Elec., Inc.
This matter comes before the court on the motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff International Harvester Company pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff Anne Wagner's claims.
Anne Wagner's claims all arise out of her marriage to Charles Wagner and consist of "loss of consortium, mental anguish and suffering, and loss of services of her husband." On August 16, 1971, plaintiff Charles Wagner suffered the injuries which are the basis of both his claim and Anne Wagner's claim against the defendant. On the date of the accident plaintiffs Anne and Charles Wagner were not married. Their marriage occurred in December 1972, nearly one and a half years after Charles' accident.
Both plaintiffs and defendant International Harvester agree that since this is a diversity action, the court is to apply the law of the state of Minnesota in determining whether a cause of action for loss of consortium exists in a spouse who was not married to the injured party at the time of the accident. Both parties also agree that the courts of Minnesota have not addressed this question to date.
This court is convinced that the rule of Sartori v. Gradison Auto Bus Co., Inc., 42 Pa.D. & C.2d 781 (1967), would be followed by the Minnesota courts. As stated in Sartori, supra, at 785,
Although the general rule may yield to special circumstances in unusual cases, cf. Sutherland v. Auch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ledger v. Tippitt
...Virginia law).) Recovery will be denied where the parties did not know one another until after the accident (Wagner v. International Harvester Co. (D.Minn.1968) 455 F.Supp. 168), or where the parties announced their wedding date and the accident occurred when they are driving to pick up the......
-
Gurliacci v. Mayer
...at the time of the injury are: (1) an individual should not be permitted to marry a cause of action; Wagner v. International Harvester Co., 455 F.Supp. 168, 169 (D.Minn.1978); (2) an individual marries the person in her existing state of health, and thereby assumes the risk that the resulti......
-
Hendrix v. General Motors Corp.
...(1939) 257 A.D. 91, 13 N.Y.S.2d 124; see Booth v. Baltimore & O.R. Co. (1915) 77 W.Va. 100, 87 S.E. 84; see also Wagner v. International Harvester Co., supra, 455 F.Supp. 168; Annot. (1981) 5 A.L.R. 4th 300.) Butcher therefore stands alone against the unanimous opinion of our sister state c......
-
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook
...a valid cause of action for loss of consortium, the parties must be married at the time of injury."); Wagner v. International Harvester Company, 455 F.Supp. 168, 169 (D.Minn.1978). One rationale offered for the rule is to prevent a person from marrying a cause of action, Wagner v. Internati......