Case Summaries
| Publication year | 1992 |
| Pages | 35 |
Clark R. Nielsen, J.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The Supreme Court refused to adopt a cause of action for loss of filial consortium and affirmed the denial of the plaintiff for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the crippling of an eight year old son during his hospitalization. Utah does not allow the recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress and the plaintiffs do not claim that they were within a zone of danger created by the defendant's negligence. The Court rejected plaintiff's suggestion that Utah should abandon the zone of danger rule and adopt the more expansive California approach. Because the Blouchers did not allege they were within the zone of danger, they could not show any claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
The precedence of Hackford v. Utah Power & Light and Utah Code Ann. § 30-2-4 persuaded the court that there should be no claim for loss of consortium of an emancipated child.
Justice Stewart dissented and argued that a parent's loss of an unemancipated child's companionship should be cognizable. The parents' claim for the loss of companionship, society and affection of a child as a result of a wrongful death has been deemed so important in Utah that it is protected by constitution and by statute. Therefore, injury short of death should also be recompensable. There should be a claim for filial consortium where a child survives an injury but is so badly injured that the basis for normal filial companionship and society between parent and child is destroyed. Justice Stewart would remand for a determination as to whether the injured son was unemancipated or not.
The majority distinguished wrongful death cases from consortium cases. In wrongful death cases, the party that suffers the actual physical injury has no cause of action and the legislature has prescribed the parties have a right to recover for the loss of the deceased's society and affection. (This is the general theory under . wrongful death cases.) ' Bloucher v. Dixie Medical Center, 194 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, filed August 21, 1992 (Utah S.Ct.) (Chief Justice Hall)
EMPLOYMENT, WRONGFUL TERMINATION
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed a jury's verdict and awarded damages for the plaintiff for his wrongful termination of employment but reversed the jury's failure to award consequential damages and the dismissal of plaintiff's public policy claims. Stating the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the court recounted a concerted and ongoing course of conduct by the defendant bank employees to terminate the plaintiff from his employment. The defendant appealed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial