 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Morgan12/4/2001
nversation
Criminal conversation protects a spouse's interest in "`the fundamental right of exclusive sexual intercourse between spouses, and also on the loss of consortium.'" Sebastian v. Kluttz, 6 N.C. App. 201, 209, 170 S.E.2d 104, 108 (1969) (quoting 42 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 698). In determining damages a jury "may consider the loss of companionship, loss of services, mental anguish, humiliation, and fear of sexually transmitted disease. In addition, there may be recovery for the injury to health and family honor . . . ." David A. Logan and Wayne A. Logan, North Carolina Torts, § 20.20 at 442 (1996) (citing Bryant v. Carrier, 214 N.C. 191, 198 S.E. 619 (1938); Cottle v. Johnson, 179 N.C. 426, 102 S.E. 769 (1920); Gray v. Hoover, 94 N.C. App. 724, 381 S.E.2d 472 (1989); Sebastian, 6 N.C. App. 201, 170 S.E.2d 104). " he loss of marital rights is a species of mental distress . . . ." W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 124 at 923 (1988). "`The plaintiff is entitled to recover for emotional distress resulting from the fact that the defendant has had sexual relations with [her husband].'" Sebastian, 6 N.C. App. at 218, 170 S.E.2d at 114 (quoting Restatement of Torts § 685 cmt. e).
B. Alienation of Affection
Similarly, alienation of affection "involves a wrongful act that deprives a married person of the affection, love, society, companionship, and comfort of the spouse." North Carolina Torts § 20.30 at 443. The tort protects a spouse's interest in having a peaceful and uninterrupted marriage. Sebastian, 6 N.C. App. at 206, 170 S.E.2d at 106. "` amages may include recovery for emotional distress caused by an invasion of such interests.'" Id. at 218, 170 S.E.2d at 114 (quoting Restatement of Torts § 690 cmt. b).
In claims for criminal conversation and alienation of affection, the law protects a spouse's interests in the exclusivity of the marital relationship, and affords an injured spouse a remedy against a third party's conduct which affects those protected interests. Our Court has held that certain intentional actions, in other contexts, may raise an inference of an intent to injure, if injury is substantially certain to follow.
Here, paragraph 1 of the trial court's conclusions of law provides that:
To the extent any of the foregoing Findings of Fact may be deemed more properly to be Conclusions of Law, the same are incorporated herein. Likewise, to the extent that any of the following Conclusions of Law may be deemed more properly to be Findings of Fact, the same are incorporated into the above Findings of Fact.
Paragraph 16 of the trial court's findings of fact states that "The conduct engaged in by [defendant] . . . as alleged in the complaint . . . was intentional and volitional and that conduct . . . gives rise to the inference that [defendant] intended the harm alleged to have been sustained by Martha Glidewell, that is, the inference that Elizabeth Glidewell knew to a substantial certainty that Martha Glidewell would be injured . . . ."
We have carefully reviewed the entire record and conclude that competent evidence supports the fact that defendant engaged in intentional sexual activities with Pete, who was married to Martha at that time. We also conclude that this finding supports the conclusion, as a matter of law, that defendant intended to injure Martha, considering the interests protected by the torts of criminal conversation and alienation of affection. We hold that when a defendant engages in conduct that is sufficient to constitute alienation of affection or criminal conversation tort actions, intent to injure the marriage and the non-consenting spouse may be inferred, as a matte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|