Barnes v. Outlaw
964 P.2d 484, 192 Ariz. 283 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for loss of consortium is valid even when the underlying injury to the claimant's spouse is purely emotional and does not involve physical harm.
Facts:
- Rev. James Outlaw was the pastor for and provided counseling to Rose Mary Martinez-Barnes and her sister, Naomi Martinez Outlaw.
- Naomi married Rev. Outlaw's son, Andrew, but they separated shortly thereafter.
- Following a confrontation related to Naomi finding her estranged husband with another woman, Rev. Outlaw threatened to reveal confidential information from his counseling sessions with the sisters.
- Rev. Outlaw subsequently told Rose that Naomi was 'screwed up because she was molested by her father,' a confidence from counseling.
- Rev. Outlaw also told other church members about incest problems within the Martinez family and announced to the congregation that the family was 'dysfunctional.'
- These actions caused severe emotional distress to Rose Mary Martinez-Barnes.
- James Barnes is the husband of Rose Mary Martinez-Barnes.
Procedural Posture:
- Rose Mary Martinez-Barnes, her siblings, and her husband, James Barnes, sued Rev. James Outlaw in a state trial court for various torts.
- James Barnes asserted a claim for loss of consortium based on the emotional injury to his wife, Rose.
- A jury in the trial court returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims, awarding damages to James Barnes for his loss of consortium claim.
- The defendants (Outlaw) appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the award for James Barnes's loss of consortium claim, holding that such a claim requires an underlying physical injury.
- James Barnes (as cross-petitioner) appealed that specific part of the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for loss of consortium require that the claimant's spouse has suffered a physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Zlaket, Chief Justice
No. A claim for loss of consortium does not require that the claimant's spouse suffer a physical injury; a purely emotional injury is sufficient. The court reasoned that the historical basis for consortium claims has shifted from a property right in a spouse's services to protecting the intangible aspects of the marital relationship, such as love, affection, and companionship. The court rejected the argument that allowing such claims would invite fraudulent or speculative litigation, stating that juries are capable of distinguishing legitimate from fictitious claims. Furthermore, because a loss of consortium claim is derivative, the plaintiff must first prove all elements of the underlying tort, which provides an inherent safeguard. The court concluded that emotional trauma can damage a marital relationship as severely as physical harm, and therefore there is no logical reason to maintain a distinction between the two types of injury for the purpose of a consortium claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands tort liability in Arizona by explicitly allowing a derivative claim for loss of consortium to be based on a purely emotional injury. It aligns Arizona with a modern trend of jurisdictions that treat severe emotional harm as a valid predicate injury for such claims, moving away from the more restrictive, traditional rule requiring physical harm. The ruling places substantial faith in the jury system to act as a gatekeeper against fraudulent claims. This precedent will likely increase the frequency of loss of consortium claims in cases involving intentional torts like defamation, invasion of privacy, and professional malpractice where the primary harm is psychological rather than physical.
Unlock the full brief for Barnes v. Outlaw