A wife appealed the dismissal of her claim for loss of consortium that the prior dismissal with prejudice of her husband’s underlying personal injury action barred her separate lawsuit.
The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Stapleton v. Palmore required a different result and reversed.
The plaintiff’s husband was involved in an auto accident, and he sued the defendant to recover for his injuries and also served State Farm Insurance as his underinsured motorist carrier. The husband voluntarily dismissed that complaint without prejudice but later filed a renewal action against the defendant and again served State Farm. The trial court dismissed the renewal action with prejudice, ruling that he failed to serve the defendant and hadn’t responded to State Farm’s discovery requests. The husband didn’t appeal that ruling.
Two years after the dismissal of his renewal action, the wife filed this lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a claim for loss of her husband’s consortium as a result of the accident, as well as claims for punitive damages and attorney fees. She apparently served State Farm, which filed an answer. The defendant and State Farm moved to dismiss the case, arguing that because the husband’s personal injury claim was “barred as a matter of law,” her derivative loss of consortium claim also was barred. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions, and the wife appealed, arguing that the trial court erred because the outcome of the husband’s claim had no effect on her consortium claim.
The trial court relied primarily on Holloway v. Northside Hospital, a 1998 decision in which a husband and wife filed a single complaint against a hospital, with the wife asserting personal injury claims based on a fall she sustained as a patient there, and the husband asserting a loss of consortium claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the wife’s claim for failure to attach an expert affidavit as required by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1. In that case, the Court of Appeals also held that the trial court properly dismissed the husband’s claim because—
[his] action is a derivative one, stemming from the right of the other spouse to recover for her injuries. When the other spouse cannot recover from the alleged tortfeasor as a matter of law, … the alleged tortfeasor also is not liable for loss of consortium arising from those injuries. Here, [the wife] cannot recover because of her failure to attach a professional negligence affidavit, and thus [the husband] has no claim for the loss of consortium.
The Court of Appeals applied this same reasoning in many other cases, holding that when both spouses sue an alleged tortfeasor in a single action, a judgment against the injured spouse necessarily precludes recovery on the other spouse’s loss of consortium claim. The reason for this rule is to avoid inconsistent judgments in the same case.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
Senior Judge C. Andrew Fuller wrote that a different analysis applies where, as here, the other spouse brings a separate action for loss of consortium:
The rule is well established that when the personal injury and loss of consortium claims of the spouses are tried separately and the alleged tortfeasor prevails on the merits at the first trial, the other claim may be maintained later because it is a “separate” and “distinct” claim of another person who was not a party or privy to the previous proceedings and who, therefore, is not bound by the judgment therein.
As such, although a loss of consortium claim is dependent upon the injured spouse having a right of action for personal injury, it is nonetheless an independent claim that is “personal to the consortium claimant.” Because the wife’s separately-filed lawsuit asserts an independent cause of action personal to her, the dismissal of the husband’s renewal complaint did not bar her subsequent complaint, the judge ruled. Thus, the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
The defendants cited the 1985 case of Henderson v. Hercules and White v. Hubbard, decided in 1992—two loss of consortium cases brought by wives whose husbands never had any viable personal injury causes of action themselves. In Henderson, the wife sued her husband’s employer after he was injured on the job; his own claim was preempted by the Worker’s Compensation Act. In White, the wife sued a bar where her husband drank alcohol before being hurt in a wreck. He had no right of action due to controlling precedent prohibiting a consumer from suing a provider of alcoholic beverages for injuries resulting from his own consumption.
In each case, the wife’s loss of consortium action failed because her husband “had no tort claim” and “her property right could only vest if his cause of action be vested, which … it is not,” Judge Fuller wrote, quoting White and Hercules. In other words, a complaint filed by either husband would have been subject to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Thus, there was never any underlying personal injury cause of action on which to base a loss of consortium claim.
However, in this case, the husband’s personal injury renewal action was dismissed not because he never had a viable cause of action, but for lack of service and discovery noncompliance.
The Court of Appeals held that in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stapleton, the result in the husband’s case did not foreclose the wife’s independent, subsequent action. The judgment of the trial court was reversed. Priester v. Turner, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 571 (Ga. App. December 28, 2023).
Speak with Our Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer for a Free Consultation
Knowing the law and hiring a knowledgeable Georgia personal injury attorney Georgia residents call makes a significant difference in an auto or truck accident. Contact an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust every day.
Every consultation with Tobin Injury Law is 100% confidential and 100% free. We’ve worked with accident victims all across the state to success.
Contact an Atlanta personal injury lawyer at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or reach out through our online contact form.