 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Hook12/26/1990
s recoverable under the wrongful death statute further convinces us that it is appropriate to recognize a cause of action for the loss of parental consortium. The interest of children in a wholesome environment has a constitutional dimension no less compelling than that the parents have in the preservation of family integrity. In the hierachy of constitutionally protected values both interests rank as fundamental and must hence be shielded with equal vigor and solicitude. When a parent dies in Oklahoma, it would be an anomoly indeed if a child were allowed recovery for the loss of a parent's society and companionship when the loss attends the parent's death, but denied recovery when the equivalent loss attends the parent's permanent injury. This is especially true when a spouse may recover for the same injury in both a death and a non-death case.
Like those courts which acknowledge the right of a child to recover for loss of a parent's love, care, companionship, and guidance if the parent is tortiously injured by a third party, we recognize that the common law is not static. It is a dynamic concept whose rules arise from the application of reason to the changing conditions of society, and it is imbued with flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation. This Court has conceded the ability of the common law to evolve by recognizing other torts, not statutorily defined, by judicial adoption. We find that a cause of action for the permanent loss of parental consortium resulting from injuries tortiously inflicted on their parent by a third person should be allowed to children under Oklahoma law.
CONCLUSION
There is no justification for upholding the archiac barriers which prevent a minor child from being compensated for the unquestionable loss which occurs when he/she permanently loses the care, comfort, and companionship of a parent. Failure to recognize the cause of action when the relationship is protected on the death of a parent would be an affront to logic and justice. Refusal to recognize the claim amounts to acknowledging an "immunity" for the tortfeasor - he/she may, with impunity, injure the child by depriving him/her of the love, society, care and protection of a parent. We cannot sanction such a ludicrous result. In recognizing such a cause of action for the loss of parental consortium, we express no opinion as to the liability of the defendants/appellants. This cause was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It is therefore reversed and remanded.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN and ALMA WILSON, JJ., concur.
HARGRAVE, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., and SIMMS and SUMMERS, JJ., dissent.
OPALA, Vice Chief Justice, with whom HARGRAVE, Chief Justice and SUMMERS, Justice, join dissenting:
I would not expand the present parameters of actionable loss-of-consortium claims.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|