183 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
The appellant’s husband was employed by appellee Argonne Co., Inc. While in the course of that employment he sustained severe and permanent injuries to his body and in particular in and about his abdomen.
As a direct consequence of those injuries the appellant was deprived of her husband’s aid, assistance, and enjoyment, specifically including sexual relations.1 The husband thereafter received compensation for his injuries pursuant to the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the workmen’s compensation statute for the District of Columbia.2
Subsequently the wife filed the present action against the employer.3 The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.4
The motion was granted and judgment was entered for the appellee.5 The wife appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which heard the case on the record of the proceedings below.6
Whether a wife has a cause of action for loss of consortium resulting from a negligent injury to her husband?7
A wife has a cause of action for loss of consortium resulting from a negligent injury to her husband.8 The rights of each spouse in the marital relation are mutual and equal.9 The injury to the wife is direct.10 The Emancipation Acts remove any procedural barrier to her invoking legal protection for that interest.11
Yes. The established facts establish that the appellant's husband sustained severe and permanent abdominal injuries while employed by the appellee, directly causing the appellant to be deprived of aid, assistance, and sexual relations.12 The court rejects arbitrary divisions of consortium that privilege material services over sentimental elements and finds no rational basis for denying the wife recovery when the husband would recover for the identical invasion.13 The action protects an independent legal right that existed prior to the Married Women's Act and receives equal protection under modern concepts of marriage.14
The wife has a cause of action for loss of consortium resulting from a negligent injury to her husband.15
Related opinions on this issue
Circuit Judge Fahy concurs in the result.16
Whether the exclusive liability provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act bar a wife’s independent action for loss of consortium?17
The exclusive liability provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act do not bar a wife’s independent action for loss of consortium.18 The claim arises from breach of an independent duty owed directly to the wife rather than on subrogation to the employee’s right.19 The Act provides no compensation for loss of consortium.20
No. The established facts show that the husband received compensation under the Act for his injuries while the wife sues in her own right for the separate invasion of her consortium interest.21 The court interprets section 905 as barring only claims brought in the employee’s right and notes that precedents permit third-party actions for independent duties even when the employer is immune from the employee’s suit.22 Because the Act makes no distinction between married and unmarried claimants and offers no remedy for the wife’s loss, it cannot be read to extinguish her separate cause of action.23
The exclusive liability provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act do not bar a wife’s independent action for loss of consortium.
Related opinions on this issue
Circuit Judge Fahy concurs in the result.