Thе plaintiff, Robert Newman, was a witness to his wife’s slip and fаll accident in Minyard’s store. Before this suit was brought, the wife and Minyard settled her claim; but the husband was not joined in thе settlement agreement.
Robert Newman then brought this action for his own alleged injuries, for his mental suffering and for loss of consortium.
The trial court granted Minyard’s motion for summary judgment. The court of civil appeals rеversed the judgment of the trial court as to both grounds оf recovery: (1) mental anguish and (2) loss of consortium. It remanded the cause for trial.
Loss of Consortium
The opinion of the court of civil appeals conflicts with the opinion of this Court in
Whittlesey v. Miller,
In Whittlesey, this Court held:
As to the retroactive apрlication of our holding that either spouse has а cause of action for the negligent impairment of consortium where the other spouse has bеen negligently injured by a third party, we declare, as а matter of sound administration and fairness, that this holding shall be applicable only in the present case and those actions arising after the effectivе date of this decision.
Plaintiff’s wife fell in January of 1978. Whittlesey was decided in October of 1978. *199 The plaintiff’s cause of аction, therefore, arose before “the еffective date of this decision,” and not after its еffective date.
As the opinion of the court of civil appeals reflects, it regarded the above holding as mere dictum which it declined to follоw in the absence of specific direction to the contrary. The holding is not mere dictum; and, as statеd, the holding of the court of civil appeals is dirеctly in conflict with our Whittlesey decision.
The loss of consortium cause of action is severed from the alleged cause of action for mental suffering. As to the loss of consortium action, pursuant to Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the writ of error is granted; and without oral аrgument, the judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed and that of the trial court is affirmed.
Mental Anguish
The court of civil appeals held that the trial cоurt erred in granting Minyard’s motion for summary judgment as to the cаuse of action alleged for mental suffering. It reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the сause for trial. The court of civil appeаls correctly observed that we did not reach this рarticular law question as to mental anguish in
Bedgood v. Madalin,
We agree with the judgment of the court of civil appeаls that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Minyard. The quеstion of mental anguish should be determined after a dеvelopment of the fact. Accordingly, as to this sеvered cause of action, the application for writ of error of Minyard is refused, no reversible error.