recognizing that an uninjured wife’s consortium claim included the fact that she was now required, due to her husband’s injury, to remain at home for long periods of time and to fore-go social engagements she previously enjoyed
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that an uninjured wife’s consortium claim included the fact that she was now required, due to her husband’s injury, to remain at home for long periods of time and to fore-go social engagements she previously enjoyed
- substantive law relates to rights and duties giving rise to claim; procedural law pertains to “machinery for carrying on the suit”
- spousal consortium — retroactive
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EAGER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent for all the reasons stated in my dissent in Novak v. Kansas City Transit, Inc., Banc, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 539 . Nothing has occurred since to change my views. The creation of such causes of action as this has, in large part, forced this Court to amend its Rule 66.01 dealing with the consolidation of causes by adding a paragraph “(c)” requiring that suits for loss of services and consortium shall be filed jointly with the original action of the other spouse for his or her personal injuries. This amendment may help to some extent in restricting a duplication of damages but, in my opinion, nothing can completely remedy the chaos or eliminate a serious likelihood of duplication. Consequently, I dissent.