ROLF ET AL. v. TRI STATE MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY ET AL.
No. 00-1329
Supreme Court of Ohio
April 25, 2001
91 Ohio St.3d 380 | 2001-Ohio-44
Torts—Emancipated children seek to recover damages for the loss of consortium they suffered as a result of injuries to their father—Adult emancipated children may recover for loss of parental сonsortium. Submitted January 31, 2001. ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No 3:99CV7687.
Adult emancipated children may recover for loss of parental consortium.
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.
{¶ 1} This matter is bеfore us as a certified question of state law from the United States District Court, Northern District, Western Division. In its certification order the federal district court states:
“Kenneth Martin, father of plaintiffs Bonnie L. Rolf and David Martin (both emancipated adults living apart from their parents), was seriously and permanently injured on October 8, 1996, in Allen County, Ohio, when his vehicle was struck from behind by a semi-trailer truck being operated by Dallas K. Pelcher, in the сourse and scope of his employment for the defendant Tri State Motor Transit Company. As a result of the accident, Kenneth Martin‘s cognitive functions and ability to control basic bodily functions have been seriously impaired. For the rest of his life he will require convalescent care and continuing medical treatment.
“* * *
“Plaintiffs Bonnie L. Rolf and David Martin filed the instant proceeding in the certifying Court on November 8, 1999. Plaintiffs seek tо recover damages for the loss of consortium that they have suffered as a result of the injuries to their father.”
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
“Can emancipated adult children maintain a claim under Ohio law for the loss of consortium caused by injuries to a parent?”
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.
{¶ 4} This court has previously recognized a minor child‘s cause of action for loss of parental consortium. Gallimore v. Children‘s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 244, 617 N.E.2d 1052, paragraph two of the syllabus. We are now asked to extend the holding of Gallimore to allow adult children to pursue a similar cause of action for parental loss of consortium.
{¶ 5} The rationale advanced in favor of recognizing a minor child‘s loss-of-parental-consortium claim in Gallimore was taken, in large part, from Justice Resnick‘s dissenting opinion in High v. Howard (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 82, 86-96, 592 N.E.2d 818, 821-827, a decision that Gallimore overruled.1 These policy arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) since a minor child can recover similar damages under the wrongful death statute,
and filial consortium claims, it should likewise recognize a minor‘s lоss-of-parental-consortium claim since the claimant‘s loss consists of many of the same elements in each type of consortium claim, including the loss of love, affection, and companionship. Therefore, to deny a loss-of-parental-consortium claim would relegate the parent-child relationship to second-class status behind spousal consortium claims or filial consortium claims; and (3) a minоr child should be allowed to recover for loss of parental consortium because the child suffers a very real and debilitating loss when a parent is injured and deserves to be compensated for that lоss.
{¶ 6} Petitioners argue that these policy reasons apply to adult children as well as minors. Consequently, they maintain that they should not be denied their right to recovery simply because they are adults. Respondеnt Tri State, however, rejects these arguments and instead contends that there are more persuasive reasons for refusing to extend loss-of-parental-consortium claims to adult, emancipated children.2
{¶ 7} The primary reason why respondent urges us to limit the holding of Gallimore to minor children is its belief that while minors suffer a compensable loss when a parent is injured, this loss is compensable only because minors are dependent upon a parent for their care and emotional guidance. By contrast, respondent maintains that the loss is so much less severe with adult children because they are no longer reliant upon a parent for financial or emotional support. Based upon this inherent difference, respondent concludes that we should not extend loss-of-parental-consortium claims to adult children.
“There is simply no good reason to afford the personal right of companionship and the parent-child relationship less protection in cases involving adult children who seek to recover for injury to the parent-child relationship. In cases where the parent-child relationship is destroyed or nearly destroyed by the tort of the defendant, the affected children, both minors and adults alike, should be allowed to maintаin a cause of action for loss of parental consortium.”
{¶ 9} Furthermore, while it is true that minor children are more dependent upon their parents to satisfy their basic needs, as noted by one law review аrticle, many adults actually renew their reliance on their parents when they reach middle age. Hammar, Breaking the Age Barrier in Alaska: Including Adult Children in Loss of Filial Consortium Actions (1995), 12 Alaska L.Rev. 73, 85. Therefore, just as minor childrеn look to their parents for emotional support, those adult children who continue to enjoy a close relationship with their parents still depend upon their parents for affection, advice, and guidance as they become older. Consequently,
{¶ 10} Therefore, we find that it is irrational to deny recovery for loss of parental consortium simply because the child has reached the аge of majority. The fact that a child turns eighteen does not erase the need for parental guidance. As one commentator so aptly notes: “The parent-child relationship does not end when the child becomes eighteen. It endures throughout life and can be characterized by love, care and affection for the duration.” Id., 12 Alaska L.Rev. at 83. In that regard, it is important to recognize that “‘[e]ven adult аnd married children have the right to expect the benefit of good parental advice and guidance.‘” Audubon-Exira Ready Mix, Inc. v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR. Co. (Iowa 1983), 335 N.W.2d 148, 150, quoting Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc. (Iowa 1969), 170 N.W.2d 632, 665.
{¶ 11} The Arizona court in Howard Frank, M.D., P.C. v. Maricopa Cty. Superior Court (1986), 150 Ariz. 228, 232, 722 P.2d 955, 959, reiterated this rationale when recognizing a filial consortium claim (brоught by parents to recover for injuries sustained by their adult child), when it stated:
“Surely nature recoils from the suggestion that the society, companionship and love which compose filial consortium automatically fade upon emancipation[,] while common sense and experience teach that the elements of consortium can never be commanded against a child‘s will at any age. The filial relatiоnship, admittedly intangible, is ill-defined by reference to the ages of the parties and ill-served by arbitrary age distinctions. Some filial relationships will be blessed with mutual caring and love from infancy through death while others will always be bereft of those qualities. Therefore, to suggest as a matter of law that compensable consortium begins at birth and ends at age eighteen is illogical and inconsistent with common sense and experiеnce.”
{¶ 13} In conclusion, we find no legitimate reason to limit recovery for loss of parental consortium to minor children. Consequently, we hold that adult emancipated children may recover for lоss of parental consortium. As we have now recognized an emancipated adult child‘s loss-of-consortium claim, these individuals, who were previously denied compensation due to an artificial age barrier, may now seek the legal redress they are entitled to for the losses they have suffered.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., concurs in judgment.
Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., and W. Craig Bashein; Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers, for petitioners.
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, and William H. Heywood III, for respondent.
Calhoun, Kademenos & Heichel Co., L.P.A., and Janet L. Phillips, in support of petitioners for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.