Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
302 N.E.2d 555 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Either spouse has a claim for loss of consortium, which includes the loss of services, society, affection, and companionship, when the other spouse is physically injured due to the negligence of a third party.
Facts:
- Eli Lilly and Company manufactured and sold a fungicide named 'Parnon'.
- Jose Santos Diaz used Parnon in the course of his work from August 1968 to September 1970.
- Jose Diaz alleged that his exposure to Parnon resulted in severe bodily injuries.
- Milagros Diaz, Jose's wife, claimed that as a result of his injuries, she suffered a loss of his consortium, including his services, society, affection, and companionship.
- Milagros Diaz alleged Eli Lilly and Company was responsible because it negligently failed to provide adequate warning of the dangers associated with using Parnon.
Procedural Posture:
- Milagros Diaz sued Eli Lilly and Company in the Massachusetts Superior Court, a state trial court, for loss of consortium.
- Eli Lilly and Company filed a demurrer, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action recognized by law.
- The Superior Court judge sustained the demurrer, dismissing Milagros Diaz's lawsuit.
- Milagros Diaz, as appellant, appealed the dismissal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, transferred the case from the intermediate Appeals Court on its own motion to decide the issue.
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 spouse have a valid claim for loss of consortium against a third party who negligently caused severe bodily injury to the other spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaplan, J.
Yes, a spouse has a claim for loss of consortium arising from a personal injury negligently inflicted upon the other spouse by a third person. The court overrules prior precedent, such as Feneff v. New York Cent. & Hudson River R.R. and Lombardo v. D. F. Frangioso & Co. Inc., which denied this right. The court found the historical distinction between allowing claims for 'intentional' interference with marriage (like adultery) while denying them for negligent interference to be illogical and incongruous, as the harm to the marital relationship can be equally or more severe in cases of negligence. The court dismissed the primary historical objection—the fear of double recovery—by reasoning that modern procedural rules, such as the joinder of claims and consolidation of actions, provide an effective remedy. By requiring both spouses' claims to be tried together, juries can be given clear instructions to distinguish the damages, thus preventing a redundant award. This decision aligns with the modern trend in a majority of American jurisdictions and reflects a contemporary understanding of marriage as an equal partnership.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Massachusetts tort law, overturning decades of precedent to recognize a cause of action for loss of consortium due to negligence. By extending the right to both spouses equally, it aligns the common law with modern principles of gender equality and the view of marriage as a partnership. The ruling's emphasis on using procedural tools like joinder and consolidation to manage substantive legal rights demonstrates how modern court procedures can facilitate the evolution of common law doctrines. This case establishes that injury to a marital relationship is a compensable harm, regardless of whether the tortfeasor's act was intentional or negligent, and will require defendants in personal injury cases to account for potential liability to the injured party's spouse.
Unlock the full brief for Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.