Opinion

Middlebrook v. Imler, Tenny & Kugler, M.D.'s, Inc.

  • 713 P.2d 572
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Aug 14, 1985
Status
Published
Author
Summers
On the bench
Hargrave, Doolin, Lavender, Wilson, Opala, Summers, Hunter, Simms, Kauger
Cited by
62 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.7%

standard of review re: demurrer to the evidence/directed verdicts

How later courts described this case

  • standard of review re: demurrer to the evidence/directed verdicts

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Fleming v. Baptist General Convention, 1987 Okla. LEXIS 302 (1987)

    The defendant contends that Middlebrook, supra, is inapplicable because the cause of action arose in 1971 and the action was filed in 1973.
    Supreme Court of OklahomaJun 23, 1987Read it

The opinion

SUMMERS, Justice,

dissenting in part and concurring in part.

I must dissent from that portion of the opinion awarding Mylynda Kay Middle-brook $175,000 for loss of consortium. She elected not to testify in support of her claim. In Hinkle v. Horton 1 the husband sued for loss of consortium. The only testimony before the jury was that of the injured wife. This court said:

... [W]e find the evidence to be insufficient to support an award therefor. True, Mrs. Hinkle testified concerning changes in her sexual abilities subsequent to the wreck and a general reference to her inability to perform certain other activities. But such evidence never ripened into a compensable basis for a recovery by plaintiff because it remained unnourished by evidence concerning what plaintiff himself lost in the way of consortium. Plaintiff did not testify in the case at all and there is no other evidence as to what the extent of such loss to him was, if any.” (emphasis added) 2

Assessment of damages for loss of consortium are among the most difficult to determine. Where the plaintiff herself declines to testify the verdict of necessity is based on speculation. The teaching of Hinkle is that a jury should not be allowed to speculate on whether or not a party is damaged by injuries to his or her spouse. Sometimes a consortium plaintiff is not damaged, even though the spouse was severely injured. 3 Large numbers of people spend good money each year to put away the companionship of their marital partner. 4 Unless the consortium plaintiff testifies the jury must speculate as to (1) whether she was damaged, (2) if so, how, and in what amount, or (3) whether she was in fact more unburdened than dam *589 aged by the incident. The consortium issue should not have been submitted to the jury,

In other respects I concur in the opinion of the majority.

I am authorized to state that HODGES, J., and HUNTER, Special Judge, concur in these views.

. 495 P.2d 117 (Okl. 1972).

. Id., at 119 .

. See Walker v. St. Louis San Fran Ky, 646 P.2d 593 (Okl.1982).

. Oklahomans filed 35,198 divorce cases in 1980.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.