319 Conn. 36
Conn.2015Background
- This is a dissent (Zarella, J., joined by Espinosa and Robinson, Js.) opposing the majority's creation of a common-law cause of action for loss of parental consortium arising from a nonfatal parental injury.
- The dissent argues the court previously declined to recognize such a claim in Mendillo v. Board of Education and that Mendillo should not be overruled by judicial decision.
- The dissent emphasizes separation of powers: legislative fact‑gathering, public hearings, and accountable lawmaking are better suited to create or define such a cause of action than the courts.
- The dissent reviews comparative law, concluding only a minority of states recognize a child’s independent claim for parental consortium after a nonfatal parental injury; many recognitions rested on legislative statutes or wrongful‑death statutes.
- The dissent raises policy concerns the majority did not address with adequate empirical evidence: risk of double recovery, increased litigation, higher insurance premiums, and uncertainty about which familial relationships (e.g., grandparents, step‑parents) should be covered.
- The dissent invokes stare decisis and argues the majority has not shown Mendillo was clearly wrong or that ‘‘the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic’’ require overruling it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut should recognize a common‑law cause of action for loss of parental consortium arising from a nonfatal parental injury | Children seek recognition of an independent cause of action for loss of parental consortium for harm caused by a parent’s nonfatal injury | Court should defer to Mendillo and the legislature; creation of new cause of action is a policy choice better made by legislature | Dissent: would affirm Mendillo and leave issue to legislature (majority created the cause of action) |
| Whether comparative authority supports overruling Mendillo | Plaintiff relies on other jurisdictions that have recognized parental consortium claims | Dissent contends the majority misstates the weight of authority: only a minority of states allow it and many relied on statutes or wrongful‑death law | Dissent: comparative law does not justify overruling Mendillo |
| Whether recognizing the claim poses unacceptable practical/legal risks (double recovery, insurance impact, scope) | Plaintiff assumes courts/juries can allocate damages without systemic harm | Defendant warns of double recovery, increased premiums, and ambiguous scope (in‑loco‑parentis, stepfamilies, grandparents) | Dissent: these policy/practical concerns counsel against judicial creation; legislature should decide |
| Whether stare decisis permits overruling Mendillo | Plaintiff/majority argue changed landscape and other jurisdictions justify departure | Defendant/dissent argues Mendillo was not clearly wrong and overruling undermines stability and predictability | Dissent: stare decisis favors adherence to Mendillo; overruling unjustified |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendillo v. Board of Education, 246 Conn. 456 (Conn. 1998) (previous Connecticut decision declining to recognize child’s cause of action for loss of parental consortium)
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (discussion of stare decisis and standards for overruling precedent)
- Hopson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 176 Conn. 485 (Conn. 1979) (example of this court overruling precedent on consortium claims in a different context)
- DeSantis v. Prelle, 891 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2006) (statement on judicial restraint and the proper role of legislature vs. courts)
- Gallimore v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 67 Ohio St.3d 244 (Ohio 1993) (Ohio case recognizing child’s claim for loss of parental consortium)