Loss of Filial Consortium

In a case currently pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court, litigants are asking that Court to recognize a claim loss of filial consortium. This refers to the loss of a child’s love and affection suffered by a parent when the child is badly injured or dies from the negligence of a third person.  Previously, Connecticut has never allowed such a claim.  In L.L. et.al. v. Newell Brands, Inc. which has a docket number of SC 21005,  a mother had put her child in a car seat and placed that car seat on the kitchen counter next to the stove.  The car seat was made by the defendant Newell Brands.  While on the counter, the car seat caught fire, causing severe burns to the child.  The parents sued Newell for manufacturing a car seat that failed to comply with burn rates established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.   They also sued the manufacturer of the stove for making a stove with knobs that could be inadvertently turned on.   The parents sued for the loss of the love and affection that they would have had from their daughter.

In their brief the parents argue that Connecticut has already recognized a claim by a child for the loss of consortium of the parent in Campos v. Coleman, 319 Conn. 36 (2015).  In that case, the Court recognized a claim of loss of consortium by a child who loses a parent to a third parties negligence.  Prior to Campos, the Connecticut Supreme Court had specifically ruled that a child did not have a right to make such a claim for loss of consortium between the child and the in Mendillo v. Board of Education, 246 Conn. 456 (1998). 

One of the primary reasons why the Court had not recognized loss of consortium by a child’s loss of a parent is the economic cost of adding this type of damage to the list of other losses that people can claim after a physical injury.  The arguments against adding this type of claim were that it would raise insurance rates, taxes and other consumer costs.  Another argument against recognizing loss of consortium by a child was theCourt’s doubt that allowing such a claim would have social benefits to society.

However, in Campos v. Coleman the Court made many of the opposite conclusions.  The Court recognized that when a child loses the love and affection of a parent, then that loss is a genuine one.  The Court further noted that it had recently “recognized that it is our state's public policy to promote the welfare of the family, and that the interest of children in not being dislocated from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association ... with the parent has constitutional significance." Campos, 41.

The parents also argued that recognizing such a claim by parents is supported by the Connecticut Supreme Court case of Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31 (1996).  In Clohessy, the Court recognized a claim for bystander emotional distress.  In that case, parents were allowed to seek damages for emotional distress suffered after seeing their child be seriously injured by the negligence of a third party.  It stands to reason that if parents are allowed damages for emotional distress when seeing their children injured, then they deserve damages from the loss of love and affection they might encounter from an injury to their child. 

The parents in L.L. v. Newell Brands are arguing that the parental bond between a parent and child is a strong one and needs to be supported by Connecticut law.  They argue that adding a financial cost to damaging that relationship would be a significant disincentive for people to cause these types of injuries, thus supporting the parent child relationship.

The parents also argued that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recognition of loss of consortium between spouses also supports the idea of a claim by parents for loss of filial consortium.  In 1979, the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized loss of consortium as a form of damages that one spouse may claim when the physical injury to their spouse by the negligence of a third party causes them to lose the society, affection, companionship or affection of their spouse.  Hopson v. St. Mary’s Hospital 176 Conn. 485, 487 (1979).  Loss of consortium between spouses can also include loss of income from a spouse, loss of the assistance from a spouse, and loss of conjugal relations.  This is the most common form of loss of consortium.

Clearly, we are seeing a progression in the law of loss of consortium claims in Connecticut which recognizes injuries that people suffer beyond just their physical injuries.  First, we saw the recognition of loss of consortium between spouses, in 1979.  Then we saw the recognition of injury by a parent in seeing their child badly injured in 1996, and the recognition of a child’s loss of consortium with a parent in 2015.   Now we must wait and see if the Connecticut Supreme Court will expand these claims even further to include a parent’s loss of consortium with a child.