# Shepherd v. Consumers Cooperative Association

> Supreme Court of Missouri · December 14, 1964 · 384 S.W.2d 635

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761778

## Case

- **Full name:** Elma SHEPHERD, Appellant, v. the CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** December 14, 1964
- **Citations:** 384 S.W.2d 635; 1964 Mo. LEXIS 594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eager
- **Judges:** Dalton, Holman, Henley, Eager, Storckman, Leedy
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761778

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761778. Public record. Not legal advice.