Personal Injury Law

Leading Tennessee Tort Cases - Damages - Recovery of Loss of Consortium Damages by Children for Injuries to Parent

By John Day

This is one of a series of posts that will excerpt sections from the third edition of my book, Day on Torts: Leading Tennessee Tort Cases.  To order the book go here.

§ 23.18 Recovery of Loss of Consortium Damages by Children for Injuries to Parent

The Case: Taylor v. Beard, 104 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2003).

The Basic Facts: Plaintiffs, children of a woman injured in an automobile collision, brought suit, in part, to recover on a loss of parental consortium due to their mother's injuries. 

The Bottom Line: 

• 'We granted review to determine whether Tennessee should adopt a cause of action allowing a child to recover for loss of parental consortium due to an injury to the child's parent.' 104 S.W.3d at 507.

• 'After reviewing these decisions, we agree with those courts that have affirmed the value of parent-child relationships and we recognize that ‘[w]hen the vitally important parent-child relationship is impaired and the child loses the love, guidance and close companionship of a parent, the child is deprived of something that is indeed valuable and precious.' Jordan, 984 S.W.2d at 601. The relevant question for us, however, is not the reality and magnitude of the child's injury, but whether it is the judiciary's role to create the proposed cause of action. In our view, the appellants do not simply request that we remove an impediment to the continual development of the common law, nor do they ask us to interpret an ambiguous statutory or constitutional provision. Rather, the appellants ask this Court to declare the public policy of this State by creating a previously unrecognized common law cause of action in an area where the legislature has taken action.' Id. at 510-11.

• 'This Court has long recognized that it has a limited role in declaring public policy and has consistently stated that ‘[t]he determination of public policy is primarily a function of the legislature,' but that the judiciary may determine ‘public policy in the absence of any constitutional or statutory declaration.' Alcazar v. Hayes, 982 S.W.2d 845, 851 (Tenn. 1998).' Id. at 511.

• 'We decline to adopt a common law cause of action for loss of parental consortium in personal injury cases and hold that the issue of whether to create such a cause of action is a matter of legislative discretion.' Id. at 511-12.

Other Sources of Note: Davidson v. Lindsey, 104 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. 2003) (holding defendants was not entitled to jury instruction that ages of children should be considered in calculating loss of consortium).

Full post as published by Day on Torts on January 26, 2011 (boomark / email).