“This contention by defendant [spouse has no separate and distinct damage by virtue of his or her loss of consortium] is contradicted by decisions of this court that have recognized that consortium is a separate property right of each spouse to the marital relationship.”
How later courts described this case
- “This contention by defendant [spouse has no separate and distinct damage by virtue of his or her loss of consortium] is contradicted by decisions of this court that have recognized that consortium is a separate property right of each spouse to the marital relationship.”
- “The distinct nature of each spouse’s right to consortium is perhaps most clearly evidenced by the fact that either spouse may sue for loss of consortium by means of an alienation of affections action even though the other spouse was a joint tortfeasor.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McGIVERIN, Justice
(concurring in result in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the result of Division I of the majority opinion and would hold to what we said in Stewart v. Madison, 278 N.W.2d 284, 296 (Iowa 1979), that adoption of the comparative negligence theory is a matter which is better handled through the legislative process.
I dissent as to Division II for the reasons stated in the dissent by Justice Uhlenhopp in the present case.
LeGRAND, J., joins in this concurrence in result in part and dissent in part.