Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co. – Loss of Consortium
Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Mass. 153, 302 N.E.2d 555 (1973).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This civil lawsuit involved a dispute over the claim of a spouse for loss of consortium.
FACTS: Ms. Diaz (W) alleges that she is the wife of Mr. Diaz and that Eli Lilly (D) manufactured Parnon. W alleged that Mr. Diaz’s employment at Eli Lilly involved the use of Parnon, and that he sustained severe bodily injuries in the course of his work and as a result of exposure to the substance. Diaz alleged a loss of consortium and claimed that Eli Lilly was liable for failing to warn her husband about Parnon.
Eli Lilly demurred on that ground that no cause of action was stated because the law did not provide Diaz with a cause of action for loss of consortium. The demurrer was sustained and Diaz appealed after refusing to amend the complaint.
ISSUE: Does a wife have a cause of action for loss of consortium from injuries suffered by her spouse caused by the negligence of a third party?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A wife has a cause of action for loss of consortium from injuries suffered by her spouse caused by the negligence of a third party.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The common law allowed for recovery for a spouse for loss of consortium for intentional invasions of the marital relationship. There is an incongruity in allowing either spouse a consortium right for an intentional invasion but denying the right when conjugal relations suffer as much or more due to a third party’s negligence. No recovery allowed to the injured plaintiff in a negligence action can properly extend to the loss of consortium suffered by the other spouse. To avoid redundant recovery, there should be plain instructions to the jury describing and distinguishing the different elements of compensable damages. This is merely a procedural problem and should not stand in the way for such an action to be recognized.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.