What are damages for

If your injuries, as a result of a defective product, affect your relationship with your spouse, you may be entitled to damages for “loss of consortium.”

Many attorneys routinely consider “loss of consortium” damages as damages for decreased or limited sexual activity between the injured party and the spouse. While this is part of a loss of consortium claim, the term also refers to care, companionship, and affection between the injured party and spouse, whether or not there is a decrease or change in sexual activity.

As a result, while this is a valid element of damages which you should consider, you should be aware that a loss of consortium claim may make you and your spouse’s sexual activity “fair game” if the matter is litigated. You should discuss the pro’s and con’s of this element of damages with your spouse and your attorney if you decide to pursue a lawsuit for a product defect.

If you do choose to pursue a claim for loss of consortium, your spouse may also choose to pursue the same claim against the same defendants, even though your spouse was not directly injured by the defective product. (Sometimes a company may be more willing to settle a case where there is more than one plaintiff and the chance for a higher verdict against the company.)

There have been efforts in some jurisdictions to extend loss of consortium to same sex partners and couples who are not married but in a permanent relationship. So far these efforts have been unsuccessful, and there is currently no recovery for loss of consortium by the injured party or the partner.

Case Studies: Exploring Damages for Loss of Consortium

Case Study 1: Smith v. TechCorp

Mr. Smith sustained severe injuries due to a defective electronic device manufactured by TechCorp. As a result, his relationship with his spouse, Mrs. Smith, was significantly affected. They experienced a decrease in sexual activity, loss of companionship, and diminished care and affection. Mr. Smith filed a lawsuit against TechCorp, seeking compensation for “loss of consortium.” Recognizing the strength of the case and the potential for a higher verdict with multiple plaintiffs, Mrs. Smith also filed a similar claim against the company.

Case Study 2: Johnson v. PharmaMeds

Mrs. Johnson suffered injuries caused by a faulty medication produced by PharmaMeds. Although the injuries were not physical, they impacted her ability to engage in various activities, including caring for her spouse, Mr. Johnson. The couple’s relationship suffered as a result, with a significant decline in companionship and affection. Mr. Johnson chose to pursue a “loss of consortium” claim alongside his wife’s lawsuit against PharmaMeds. The presence of both spouses as plaintiffs increases the chances of a favorable settlement or a higher verdict.

Case Study 3: Brown v. AutoWheels

Mr. Brown was severely injured in a car accident caused by a defective vehicle manufactured by AutoWheels. As a result, his relationship with his same-sex partner, Mr. Green, was profoundly affected. Despite the enduring emotional distress and changes in their relationship dynamics, Mr. Brown and Mr. Green discovered that the current legal framework did not recognize loss of consortium claims for same-sex partners. They decided to advocate for extending these rights to include their situation.

Case Study 4: Lee v. HomeGoods

Ms. Lee, in a long-term permanent relationship but not married, suffered injuries due to a dangerous product sold by HomeGoods. The injuries caused a significant deterioration in her relationship, affecting care, companionship, and affection with her partner, Ms. Adams.

However, the absence of legal recognition for loss of consortium claims by non-married couples prevented Ms. Adams from seeking compensation for the damages she also endured. Ms. Lee’s case spurred efforts to expand the scope of loss of consortium to include non-married couples in permanent relationships.