Cox v. Haworth
304 N.C. 571, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1371, 284 S.E.2d 322 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A decision by a court of supreme jurisdiction that overrules a prior decision is presumed to have retrospective effect and will apply to all pending claims not barred by a final judgment, settlement, or the statute of limitations, unless compelling reasons exist for limiting the new rule to prospective application.
Facts:
- On or about July 14, 1978, defendant Dr. Haworth performed a myelogram procedure on Alfred W. Cox.
- Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the procedure, her husband, Alfred W. Cox, developed spinal cord arachnoiditis.
- This condition allegedly left Mr. Cox permanently disabled and sexually impotent.
- Due to her husband's condition, the plaintiff, Mrs. Cox, suffered the loss of his companionship, conjugal society, affection, and sexual gratification.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 15, 1980, the plaintiff, Mrs. Cox, filed suit for loss of consortium against defendant Haworth in the Superior Court of Guilford County.
- Defendant Haworth filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing the claim was not recognized in North Carolina at the time of the injury.
- The trial court (Superior Court) granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's action.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- Before the Court of Appeals issued a decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for discretionary review.
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 the newly recognized cause of action for loss of consortium, established in Nicholson v. Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc., apply retroactively to a claim that arose from an injury occurring before that decision was rendered?
Opinions:
Majority - Carlton, J.
Yes. A newly recognized cause of action for loss of consortium applies retroactively. Under the traditional Blackstonian doctrine, a court's decision overruling prior precedent is generally given retrospective effect because the act of overruling is a confession that the prior ruling was never the law. While courts may deviate from this for compelling reasons, none exist here. The defendant's argument of justifiable reliance—specifically, the failure to procure insurance for loss of consortium claims—is unpersuasive because this new claim merely affects the extent of liability, not the fact of liability for the underlying tort, which is different from cases where a total immunity is abolished. Furthermore, the purpose of the new rule, which is to compensate spouses for their loss, is best served by retroactive application. Finally, retroactive application will not unduly burden the administration of justice, as existing rules of civil procedure are adequate to manage joinder issues.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strong presumption of retroactivity for new common law rules in North Carolina. It clarifies the high bar for establishing the 'compelling reasons' needed to justify a prospective-only application, particularly the justifiable reliance factor. The court's distinction between abolishing an immunity (affecting the fact of liability) and recognizing a new claim (affecting the extent of liability) provides a key analytical framework for future retroactivity disputes. This ruling significantly benefits plaintiffs whose claims are pending when the law changes in their favor, reinforcing the idea that a corrected legal rule should apply as if it had always been the correct interpretation of the law.
