Harris v. Sherman
708 A.2d 1348, 1998 Vt. LEXIS 55, 167 Vt. 613 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for loss of consortium is only cognizable if the claimant was legally married to the injured person at the time the injury was sustained; an injury that occurs during an engagement, even if the parties later marry, cannot support such a claim.
Facts:
- John Harris and Shannon Harris were engaged to be married.
- In May 1995, John Harris was involved in an automobile accident with William Sherman and allegedly sustained personal injuries.
- Approximately two months after the accident, John Harris and Shannon Harris became legally wed.
- Shannon Harris asserted a claim for loss of consortium based on the injuries her husband sustained in the pre-marital accident.
Procedural Posture:
- John Harris sued defendants in Lamoille Superior Court for negligent operation of their vehicle.
- Shannon Harris joined the lawsuit, bringing a derivative claim for loss of consortium.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Shannon Harris's loss of consortium claim.
- The Lamoille Superior Court (the trial court) granted defendants' motion and dismissed Shannon Harris's claim with prejudice.
- Plaintiff Shannon Harris (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Vermont 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 Vermont's loss of consortium statute, 12 V.S.A. § 5431, permit a person to recover for loss of consortium when the underlying injury to their partner occurred while they were engaged, but before they were legally married?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A person cannot bring a loss of consortium claim under 12 V.S.A. § 5431 if they were not legally married to the injured party at the moment the injury occurred. The court reasoned that while the statute provides a claim for a 'spouse,' it is silent on the timing of the marriage. The purpose of the statute was remedial, intended only to equalize the right for women to sue for loss of consortium, not to otherwise expand the common law scope of the action. The court noted that consortium is a derivative claim 'rooted in time, place, and circumstance' to the injury, meaning the marital relationship must exist when the injury happens. Citing the overwhelming weight of authority from other jurisdictions and the unique legal status of marriage as a formal state-recognized contract, the court declined to extend the claim to engaged couples, which would require difficult line-drawing and amount to judicial legislation.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Vermont, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions on the issue of loss of consortium. By rejecting claims based on premarital injuries, the court reinforces the view that the consortium action protects the legal status of marriage itself, not just close, intimate relationships. The ruling emphasizes judicial restraint by refusing to expand a statutory remedy beyond the legislature's apparent intent, thereby preventing courts from having to evaluate the 'seriousness' or 'stability' of non-marital relationships.
