Benda v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City
384 P.3d 207
Utah2016Background
- A 14-year-old Juan Diego Catholic High School student was severely injured when a man-lift toppled during drama class; injuries included traumatic brain injury.
- Parents sued the Diocese and the high school for negligence and vicarious liability, and asserted an individual claim for loss of filial consortium.
- Defendants admitted fault for the student’s injuries but moved to dismiss the parents’ loss of filial consortium claim, arguing Utah does not recognize such a claim; dismissal was certified as final under Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b).
- The district court granted dismissal and certified finality; parents appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
- The Utah Supreme Court considered whether to judicially recognize a cause of action allowing parents to recover for loss of a minor child’s consortium and whether such recognition is precluded by prior case law or legislatively preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah should recognize a cause of action for parents’ loss of filial consortium when a minor child is tortiously injured | Parents: Utah should adopt a cause of action allowing recovery for loss of a minor child’s consortium | Defendants: Utah has not recognized filial-consortium claims; legislature enacted spousal-consortium statute but not filial, implying rejection; Boucher bars expansion | Court: Adopted a cause of action for loss of filial consortium for injuries to minor children that meet the definition in Utah Code §30-2-11(1)(a); reversed dismissal and remanded |
| Whether prior decision in Boucher precludes adopting this cause of action | Parents: Boucher concerned adult children only and is not binding here | Defendants: Boucher’s reasoning argues against expanding consortium claims | Court: Boucher addressed adult-child claims and is not binding for minor-child context; many Boucher concerns were undercut by later statutory developments |
| Whether Utah Code §30-2-11 (spousal consortium statute) legislatively preempts judicial adoption of filial consortium | Parents: Statute does not expressly preempt; silence does not mean rejection for minors | Defendants: Legislature could have added filial-consortium when enacting spousal statute and did not | Court: No express or structural preemption; statute’s placement and language do not occupy the field |
| Temporal scope of recovery for filial-consortium claim | Parents: Recovery should be available for losses from the time of injury | Defendants: (argued implicitly that expansion is problematic) | Court: Claim is derivative of the injured child’s action and recovery runs from time of the injury (not limited to period of minority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Boucher ex rel. Boucher v. Dixie Med. Ctr., 850 P.2d 1179 (Utah 1992) (addressed filial-consortium claims for adult children and declined to recognize them)
- Hackford v. Utah Power & Light Co., 740 P.2d 1281 (Utah 1987) (discussed limits on recognizing consortium actions and urged legislative creation of spousal consortium)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (recognized the fundamental nature of parental rights in companionship and custody)
- Ruden v. Parker, 462 N.W.2d 674 (Iowa 1990) (recognized societal importance of parent–minor child relationship when considering filial-consortium recovery)