835 F. Supp. 2d 732
W.D. Mo.2011Background
- This is a federal bench trial reversed in part by the Eighth Circuit for an excessive consortium damages award.
- Calvin Kingman, a quadriplegic, claimed loss of nursing services provided by his wife Paula due to her injury at Dillard’s.
- Dillard’s urged disallowance of any recovery for Paula’s nursing services, distinguishing ‘professional’ nursing from ordinary domestic care.
- The court refused to adopt a pure ‘professional nursing’ category and retained some consortium-based recovery for non-professional services.
- The court faced whether to remit the award and, if so, to what amount, in light of appellate guidance that recovery cannot be greatly inflated beyond the injured party’s recovery.
- The court ultimately settled on a $250,000 award to Calvin Kingman, balancing the appraisal of services, cost considerations, and Missouri law constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of Paula Kingman’s nursing services is recoverable | Kingman | Dillard’s | Loss recoverable; no separate heavy-duty professional nursing category |
| What is the proper scope and value of the loss of consortium claim | Kingman | Dillard’s | Limit consortium damages to avoid overcompensation; use non-professional services value |
| Should the damages be remitted to align with appellate guidance | Kingman | Dillard’s | Remittitur to $250,000 deemed appropriate |
| Whether the ruling should rely on or reject the notion of ‘professional’ nursing as a compensable category | Kingman | Dillard’s | Reject professional nursing as separate category; cap at non-professional services |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingman v. Dillard’s, Inc., 643 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirms limit on heavy-duty professional nursing recovery)
- Wright v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 470 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir.1972) (limits on heavy-duty nursing; affects parental care case treatment)
- Bohanan v. Maxwell, 181 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1921) (family duties may support services recovery in certain contexts)
- Clark v. Shoaf, 209 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006) (loss of consortium damages context; appellate affirmation of limits)
- Smith v. Houston, 551 So.2d 551 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (remand after jury rejected consortium claim for paraplegic health care)