Liff v. Schildkrout
49 N.Y.2d 622, 427 N.Y.S.2d 746, 404 N.E.2d 1288 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A surviving spouse may not maintain a common-law cause of action for loss of consortium due to the death of their partner. Furthermore, loss of consortium is not a 'pecuniary injury' and therefore cannot be recovered as an element of damages within a statutory wrongful death action.
Facts:
- On December 11, 1970, Anthony Ventura died as a result of a gas explosion in Manhattan involving Consolidated Edison Co. and the City of New York.
- On July 20, 1975, Patricia Grant died while under anesthesia for a Caesarean section at Long Island College Hospital.
- On September 29, 1975, Joseph Liff died, allegedly as a result of medical malpractice by Dr. Schildkrout.
- In each instance, the deceased person was survived by a spouse who sought to recover damages for the loss of their marital partner's society, companionship, and services (loss of consortium).
Procedural Posture:
- Liff: The executors of Joseph Liff's estate sued Dr. Schildkrout. They moved the trial court (Special Term) for leave to amend their complaint to add a cause of action for the widow's loss of consortium. Special Term granted the motion only for the period before the decedent's death. The intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) affirmed, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Grant: The administrator of Patricia Grant's estate sued the hospital and doctors. A defendant moved to dismiss the wrongful death claim as barred by the statute of limitations and the loss of consortium claim as improper. The trial court (Special Term) dismissed the complaint against that defendant. The intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) affirmed, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Ventura: The administrator of Anthony Ventura's estate sued Consolidated Edison and the City of New York. After a finding of liability, the plaintiff moved the trial court (Trial Term) to amend the complaint to include a claim for the widow's loss of consortium. Trial Term denied the motion. The intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) reversed, allowing the claim. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
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 surviving spouse have a common-law cause of action for loss of consortium due to the wrongful death of their partner, and is loss of consortium a recoverable element of damages within a statutory wrongful death action?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
No. A surviving spouse does not have a common-law cause of action for loss of consortium due to death, nor is it a recoverable element of damages in a statutory wrongful death action. The court reasoned that all causes of action arising from an individual's death must be based on statutory authority, as the common law did not recognize suits for wrongful death. The legislature preempted this area by creating a statutory wrongful death action (EPTL 5-4.1), and the courts must defer to the legislative scheme. A loss of consortium claim is derivative, meaning it depends on the injured spouse's own cause of action. Since a decedent has no cause of action for their own death, a surviving spouse has no derivative claim for loss of consortium for the period after death. Furthermore, the wrongful death statute (EPTL 5-4.3) expressly limits damages to 'pecuniary injuries,' which New York courts have long interpreted to exclude non-economic damages such as grief, loss of society, and conjugal fellowship. The legislature's failure to amend this language signals its approval of this interpretation, and any change must come from the legislature, not the courts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the bright-line rule in New York that all remedies for death are exclusively governed by the wrongful death statute, not the common law. It creates a stark distinction between a spouse who is severely injured (allowing a consortium claim) and one who is killed (barring such a claim). By reaffirming that 'pecuniary injuries' in the wrongful death statute do not include emotional or relational damages, the court placed the onus for any expansion of damages squarely on the legislature. This holding reinforces judicial deference to legislative schemes in areas where the legislature has acted to abrogate or replace common law rules, impacting how damages are calculated in all wrongful death cases in the state.
