Nicholson v. Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Inc.
300 N.C. 295, 1980 N.C. LEXIS 1075, 266 S.E.2d 818 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse may maintain a cause of action for loss of consortium resulting from the negligent actions of a third party, provided that this claim is joined with the injured spouse's action for personal injuries.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's husband was negligently injured by a third party.
- As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff wife experienced a loss of consortium.
- Consortium includes the loss of society, companionship, affection, and sexual gratification within the marriage.
- The plaintiff wife sought to recover damages from the negligent third party for this loss of consortium.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff wife filed a lawsuit in a North Carolina trial court seeking damages for loss of consortium after her husband was negligently injured.
- The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, following existing state precedent that did not recognize such a cause of action.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that under North Carolina law, a wife has no cause of action for loss of consortium from a negligent injury to her husband.
- The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state's highest court, for 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 a wife have a cause of action under North Carolina law for loss of consortium resulting from a negligent injury to her husband?
Opinions:
Majority - Carlton, Justice.
Yes. A spouse has a cause of action for loss of consortium due to the negligent injury of their partner. The Court expressly overrules its prior precedents in Hinnant v. Tidewater Power Company and Helmstetler v. Duke Power Company, which had eliminated such claims for both spouses. The Court rejected the reasoning of those cases, finding that: 1) The historical basis for denying the wife's claim, rooted in the concept of women as chattel, is obsolete and contrary to the purpose of the married women's acts which sought to equalize spousal rights; 2) The definition of consortium is not limited to 'services' but also includes society, companionship, and affection, which are real and compensable injuries; 3) Damages for loss of consortium are not too remote or speculative to measure, as evidenced by their successful application in wrongful death and intentional tort cases; and 4) The risk of double recovery can be effectively managed. To address this risk and recognize that the injury is to the marital entity, the Court mandates that any action for loss of consortium must be joined with the physically injured spouse's lawsuit for their personal injuries.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters North Carolina tort law by overturning decades of precedent that barred claims for negligent loss of consortium. It modernizes the state's jurisprudence by aligning it with the majority of American jurisdictions and reflects a contemporary understanding of marriage as an equal partnership. The ruling recognizes that the intangible aspects of the marital relationship, such as companionship and affection, have legal value and are compensable. The mandatory joinder rule is a key procedural innovation, creating a practical framework that prevents double recovery while acknowledging the injury to the marital unit as a whole.
