Bystander Distress and Loss of Consortium: An Examination of the Relationship Requirements in Light of Romer v. Evans
Year: 1997
Type: article
Abstract: This hypothetical is a composite of the facts of Coon v. Joseph.237 Cal.Rptr.873, 874 (Ct.App.1987), and Trombetta v. Conkling, 626 N.E.2d 653, 653-54 (N.Y. 1997] 18. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 124, at 915 (5th ed.1984) [hereinafter Prosser]; see Butcher v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.Rptr.503, 506 (Ct.App.1983), overruled by Elden v. Sheldon, 758 P.2d 582 (Cal.1988) (en bane).19.Butcher, 188 Cal.Rptr. at 506 (quoting Sawyer v. Bailey, 413 A.2d 165, 167 (Me.1980)).20.Comment, Extending Consortium Rights to Unmarried Cohabitants, 129 U. Pa.L. Rev. 911, 917, 920-21 (1981) [hereinafter Extending Consortium Rights].21. 183 F.2d 811 (D.C.Cir.), cert.denied, 340 U.S. 852 (1950).22. Id. at 819 (emphasis omitted).23.The right to recover for loss of a spouse's consortium is recognized in 47 states and the District of Columbia.See Colo.Rev. Stat.§ 14-2-209 (1987); La.Civ.Code Ann.art.2315 (West Supp.1997); Me.Rev. Stat.Ann.tit.19, § 167-A (West 1981) (repealed as of Oct. 1, 1997); Miss.Code.Ann.§ 93-3-1 (1972); N.H.Rev. Stat.Ann.§ 507(8-a) (1983); Okla.Stat.Ann.tit.43, § 214 (West 1990); Or.Rev. Stat.§ 108.010 (1990); S.C. Code Ann.§ 15-75-20 (Law.Co-op.1977); Tenn.Code Ann.
Author: Laura M. Raisty
Institution: Fordham University
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1485959463