DOCSLIB.ORG

Unmasking Damages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UNMASKING DAMAGES CAROLYN WOODRUFF JD, CPA, CVA WOODRUFF FAMILY LAW GROUP 420 WEST MARKET STREET GREENSBORO, NC 336-272-9122 [email protected] Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., CPA, CVA is a North Carolina Family Law Specialist and President of the preeminent Woodruff Family Law Group in Greensboro, North Carolina. She was graduated from Duke Law School with High Honors where she served as Research and Managing Editor of the Duke Law Review. As a North Carolina CPA, Carolyn has been a trailblazer in the area of business valuation and is a frequent writer and lecturer on business valuation and federal taxation. Carolyn is a Certified Valuation Analyst having met the requirements of this designation by the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts. She serves on the public board of Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (BRBS) and the local board of Carolina State Bank in Greensboro, NC. She is the only North Carolina female fellow in the distinguished American College of Tax Counsel. She is an instrument-rated multi-engine airplane pilot and avid ballroom show dancer. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ALIENATION OF AFFECTION AND CRIMINAL CONVERSATION .................................... 3 I. Scope note ............................................................................................................................... 3 II. Alienation of affection ........................................................................................................... 3 III. Criminal conversation .......................................................................................................... 8 IV. Discovery case study .......................................................................................................... 12 V. Damages awards .................................................................................................................. 14 JURY INSTRUCTION – MAIN .................................................................................................. 19 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.20 .............................................................................................................. 19 N.C.P.I.--Civil 800.22 ............................................................................................................... 23 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.23 .............................................................................................................. 25 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.23A ........................................................................................................... 28 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.25 .............................................................................................................. 30 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.26 .............................................................................................................. 33 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.27 .............................................................................................................. 35 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.27A ........................................................................................................... 37 JURY INSTRUCTION – PRESENT VALUE ............................................................................. 39 N.C.P.I.—Civil 810.96 .............................................................................................................. 39 N.C.P.I.—Civil 810.14 .............................................................................................................. 41 JURY INSTRUCTION – PER DIEM .......................................................................................... 44 N.C.P.I.—Civil 810.56 .............................................................................................................. 44 JURY INSTRUCTIONS-PUNITIVE DAMAGES ...................................................................... 46 N.C.P.I.—Civil 810.98 .............................................................................................................. 46 DR. BROD ECONOMIC REPORT ............................................................................................. 48 2 ALIENATION OF AFFECTION AND CRIMINAL CONVERSATION Carolyn J. Woodruff Woodruff Family Law Group I. Scope note This presentation sets forth the elements of alienation of affection and criminal conversation. Part II covers the elements, damages, and statute of limitations for alienation of affection; Part III covers the same for criminal conversation. Part IV provides a case study on a discovery issue. Part V discusses alienation of affection and criminal conversation appellate cases upholding large damage awards and identifies factors supporting those awards. There have been several challenges to the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, including a 2017 case in which the Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges based on Due Process and First Amendment grounds. Malecek v. Williams, 804 S.E.2d 592 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017), review denied, 370 N.C. 381, 807 S.E.2d 574 (2017). II. Alienation of affection Alienation of affection is the malicious and wrongful alienation of a genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and his spouse. There are some differences depending on whether the cause of action arose from acts before or after October 1, 2009. The North Carolina Supreme Court held in 2006 that sexual conduct occurring after a married couple has separated, but before their divorce, is sufficient to support claims for alienation of affection. McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 624 S.E.2d 620 (2006). However, in 2009, the General Assembly codified alienation of affection in a statute specifically limiting the torts to arise only from acts committed prior to a married couple’s separation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-13(a). A. Elements 1. Genuine marital relationship Plaintiff and his spouse were married and a genuine marital relationship existed between them. a. A “genuine marital relationship” is one where some degree of love and affection exists between the spouses. Affections include love, society, companionship, and comfort of the other spouse. Darnell v. Rupplin, 91 N.C. App. 349, 371 S.E.2d 743 (1988). 3 Legally protected marital interests include the affections, society and companionship of the other spouse, sexual relations and the exclusive enjoyment thereof. Sebastian v. Kluttz, 6 N.C. App. 201, 170 S.E.2d 104 (1969). b. The marital relationship need not be a perfect one nor one free of discord. A plaintiff need not prove a marriage free from discord, only that some affection existed between the spouses. The plaintiff satisfied this element where he provided evidence that he and his wife had a “loving marriage” where she did housework, prepared family meals, attended church with the family, took family trips, and had an interest in sexual relations with her husband. Nunn v. Allen, 154 N.C. App. 523, 574 S.E.2d 35 (2002). A plaintiff must produce evidence of love and affection, but need not prove that her spouse had no affection for anyone else or that the marriage was one of “untroubled bliss.” McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 624 S.E.2d 620 (2006). The plaintiff satisfied this element where she produced evidence that the couple purchased a car together, maintained joint finances, and participated in marriage counseling sessions, including a session in which the husband said that he was “not headed toward divorce.” The plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of a loving marriage where the couple maintained an active sexual relationship, vacationed together, she traveled with him on business trips, they coached their children’s soccer team together and volunteered in church and community organizations, and the husband often expressed his love for the plaintiff by writing romantic poetry, including a poem entitled “Why I Love You.” Hutelmyer v. Cox, 133 N.C. App. 364, 514 S.E.2d 554 (1999). 2. Alienation The genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and his spouse was alienated. Alienation means that the love and affection of the plaintiff’s spouse for the plaintiff was seriously diminished or destroyed. Diminution often does not happen all at once, and the question of when alienation occurs is usually one for the jury. McCutchen v. McCutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 624 S.E.2d 620 (2006) The plaintiff showed serious diminution or destruction by presenting evidence that his wife’s attention to housework and preparation of family meals, as well as her interest in sexual relations, began to decline. A year or two later, she stopped attending church with the family, did not want to take family trips and began sleeping separately from the plaintiff. The following year, she moved out of the marital home. Nunn v. Allen, 154 N.C. App. 523, 574 S.E.2d 35 (2002). The plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the love and affection that existed between he and his wife was alienated and destroyed where he testified that after the defendant started working with his wife, his wife began turning cold towards the plaintiff and their sex life started deteriorating. The plaintiff also testified that his wife turned down a trip to Europe and told him 4 she did not want to go anywhere with him. The plaintiff’s wife also told him she did not love him anymore and that she loved the defendant. Gray v. Hoover, 94 N.C. App. 724, 381 S.E.2d 472 (1989). 3. Causation, location, effect of separation The controlling or effective proximate cause of the alienation of the genuine marital relationship between the plaintiff and his spouse was malicious and wrongful conduct on the part
Recommended publications
  • Unrealized Torts

    Unrealized Torts

    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2002 Unrealized Torts Benjamin C. Zipursky Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] John C.P. Goldberg Harvard Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Zipursky and John C.P. Goldberg, Unrealized Torts, 88 Va. L. Rev. 1625 (2002) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/834 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 88 DECEMBER2002 NUMBER 8 ARTICLES UNREALIZED TORTS John C.P. Goldberg*& Benjamin C. Zipursky** INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1626 I. REALIZED WRONGS .................................................................. 1636 A . Crime versus Tort ................................................................ 1636 B. Tort as Civil Recourse ......................................................... 1641 II. WHEN IS HEIGHTENED RISK A COGNIZABLE INJURY? . ..... 1650 III. RISK OF FUTURE INJURY AND THE LAW OF EMOTIONAL D ISTRESS ....................................................................................
  • Loss of Consortium Damages

    Loss of Consortium Damages

    If you have questions or would like further information regarding Loss of Consortium, 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 please contact: www.querrey.com® Chuck Blackman 312-540-7682 © 2011 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. [email protected] ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER XIV DAMAGES C. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In Illinois, under certain circumstances, an Reiss, 92 Ill. App. 3d 200 (1980); Medley v. injured person’s spouse is entitled to damages for Strong, 200 Ill. App. 3d 488 (1990). “loss of consortium.” I.P.I. 32.04 (2000). Loss of consortium has been defined to include the However, where two persons have a valid support, society, companionship, and sexual marriage under the laws of the state in which they relationship that a husband or wife has been are domiciled, they may still be entitled to a loss deprived of to date, and which he or she is of consortium claim. (People who are domiciled reasonably certain to be deprived of in the future, in Illinois and have crossed state lines for the due to the claimed injury to or death of a spouse. purpose of getting married may not be entitled to Schrock v. Shoemaker, 159 Ill. 2d 533 (1994); recover.) Allen v. Storer, 235 Ill. App. 3d 5 Elliott v. Willis, 92 Ill. 2d 530 (1982); Dini v. (1992). Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406 (1960). The tort of loss of consortium is an action based on an injury to the In a wrongful death action, the surviving personal relationship established by the marriage spouse can recover damages for loss of contract.
  • Table of Contents (V.3 No.1)

    Table of Contents (V.3 No.1)

    Catholic University Law Review Volume 3 Issue 1 January 1953 Article 1 1953 Table of Contents (v.3 no.1) Catholic University Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Catholic University Law Review, Table of Contents (v.3 no.1), 3 Cath. U. L. Rev. (1953). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol3/iss1/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA LAW REVIEW Volume III January, 1953 Number 1 CONTENTS ARTICLES Page Pretrial Procedure in the District of Columbia ...................... Honorable Alexander HoltzojJ I Some Reflections on Pound's Jurisprudence of Interests .......................... Rev. Dr. Francis 1. Powers 10 COMMENTS Inherent Power of the President to Seize Property ................... 27 Just Compensation and Riparian Interests ........................ 33 A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution ...................... 43 RECENT CASES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Captive Audience-Public Utilities- Right of Privacy not Violated by Transit Radio. Pollak v. Public Utilities Commission, 343 U. S. 451 (1952) .............................. 51 CORPORATIONS-Agency-Attorney and Client. Zeeb v. Atlas Powder Co., 87 A. 2d 123 (Del. 1952) .......................... 53 CRIMINAL LAW-Subnormal Mentality as Affecting Criminal Re- sponsibility. Commonwealth v. Elliott, 89 A. 2d 782 (Pa. 1952) ...... 55 FUTURE INTERESTS-Habendum Clause--Condition Subsequent-- Base or Determinable Fee. Ange v. Ange, 71 S. E. 2d 19 (N. C. 1952) 57 INSURANCE-Constitutional Law.
  • 099-0090.Pdf

    099-0090.Pdf

    Public Act 099-0090 SB0057 Enrolled LRB099 05449 HEP 25484 b AN ACT concerning civil law. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: ARTICLE 1. HEART BALM ACTIONS Section 1-1. Findings. The majority of states have abolished heart balm actions. In Illinois, heart balm actions for alienation of affections, breach of promise to marry, and criminal conversation were permitted under the common law before the abolition of those causes of action by "An Act in relation to certain causes of action conducive to extortion and blackmail, and to declare illegal, contracts and Acts made and done in pursuance thereof", filed May 4, 1935, Laws 1935, p. 716. The Illinois Supreme Court held, in Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296 (1946), that the 1935 Act was unconstitutional and that the abolition of heart balm actions would infringe upon the rights of parties to remedies under Section 19 of Article II of the 1870 Constitution. (Section 12 of Article I of the 1970 Constitution is similar to the relevant portion of Section 19 of Article II of the 1870 Constitution.) Since 1947, heart balm actions have been permitted with limited damages under the Alienation of Affections Act, the Breach of Promise Act, and the Criminal Conversation Act. Society has since recognized that the amicable settlement Public Act 099-0090 SB0057 Enrolled LRB099 05449 HEP 25484 b of domestic relations disputes is beneficial. In 1977, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act became the law of this State. As stated in Section 102 of that Act, among its underlying purposes are: promoting the amicable settlement of disputes that have arisen between parties to a marriage; mitigating the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage; and eliminating the consideration of marital misconduct in the adjudication of rights and duties incident to the legal dissolution of marriage, legal separation and declaration of invalidity of marriage.
  • Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium

    Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium

    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 20 Issue 2 Article 10 1971 Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium Fred Weisman Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Torts Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Fred Weisman, Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium, 20 Clev. St. L. Rev. 315 (1971) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol20/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium Fred Weisman* T HE RECENT OHIO SuPRFM COURT RULING in Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac Inc.' reversed a rule which had existed in Ohio for over fifty years. Ohio has now been added to the growing list of states which allow to a wife an action for damages for loss of con- sortium arising from negligent injury to her husband. Prior Rule Prior to this decision, the leading case in Ohio was Smith v. Nicholas Building Co.,2 which held that although a husband was al- lowed a cause of action for negligent injury to his wife for his loss of consortium, the wife was not entitled to recover for her loss of con- sortium arising out of injury to her husband caused by the defendant's negligence. The reason advanced by the court back in 1915 was that the husband's action for loss of consortium was accompanied by a loss of services claim, but the wife's action for loss of consortium was not accompanied by a loss of services claim.
  • Of 3 NCPI—Civil 800.27 CRIMINAL CONVERSATION—STATUTE OF

    Of 3 NCPI—Civil 800.27 CRIMINAL CONVERSATION—STATUTE OF

    Page 1 of 3 N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.27 CRIMINAL CONVERSATION—STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME REPLACEMENT JUNE 2015 ------------------------------ 800.27 CRIMINAL CONVERSATION—STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. NOTE WELL: For actions arising from acts occurring prior to October 1, 2009, use this instruction. For actions arising from acts occurring on or after October 1, 2009, see N.C.P.I-Civil 800.27A (“Criminal Conversation – Statute of Limitations”). The (state number) issue reads: “Did the plaintiff file this action within three years of the date it became apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the plaintiff that the defendant had committed criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s spouse?”1 If you have answered the (state number) issue “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim may nonetheless be legally barred by what is called the statute of limitations.2 The law provides that a lawsuit claiming criminal conversation must be filed within three years after the date the plaintiff discovered or ought reasonably to have discovered, whichever event first occurred, that the defendant committed criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s spouse.3 The plaintiff filed the present lawsuit on (state date of filing of criminal conversation action). On this issue, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.4 This means that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the plaintiff filed this action within three years after the date it became apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the plaintiff, whichever event first occurred, that the defendant had committed criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s spouse.
  • Child Abuse and Neglect in North Dakota

    Child Abuse and Neglect in North Dakota

    North Dakota Law Review Volume 53 Number 2 Article 3 1976 Child Abuse and Neglect in North Dakota William N. Friedrich Jerry A. Boriskin Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Friedrich, William N. and Boriskin, Jerry A. (1976) "Child Abuse and Neglect in North Dakota," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 53 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol53/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN NORTH DAKOTA WILLIAM N. FRIEDRICH* JERRY A. BORISKIN* I. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT A. INTRODUCTION The willful abuse and neglect of children, either individually or collectively, by parents, relatives, siblings, or the policies and regu- lations of our society's institutions, are inexcusable affronts to hu- man decency. Particularly within the last decade, this brutalization of children has become the subject of considerable attention in pro- fessional literature1 and the mass media. Various synonyms for child abuse have been proposed, for exam- ple, the battered child syndrome- and suspected child abuse and ne- glect (SCAN) .3 Regardless of the name, child abuse is now a ma- jor cause of death and disability among children. According to Vin- cent 3. Fontana, chairman of New York's Mayor's Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, "Statistics strongly suggest that child bat- tering is probably the most common cause of death in children today, outnumbering those caused by any of the infectious diseases, leukem- ' 4 ia, and auto accidents.
  • Alienation of Affections in the Conflict of Laws Albert A

    Alienation of Affections in the Conflict of Laws Albert A

    Cornell Law Review Volume 45 Article 5 Issue 3 Spring 1960 Alienation of Affections in the Conflict of Laws Albert A. Ehrenzweig Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Albert A. Ehrenzweig, Alienation of Affections in the Conflict of Laws , 45 Cornell L. Rev. 514 (1960) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol45/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS* Towards the Lex Forifor Admonitory Torts Albert A. Ehrenzweigt "If a cause of action in tort is created at the place of wrong, a cause of action will be recognized in other states. If no cause of action is created at the place of wrong, no recovery in tort can be had in any other state."' This is the "rule" of the Restatement which, for the sake of "certainty," courts throughout the country during the last few decades have invoked in nearly every torts conflicts case-only to reach widely differing results by the haphazard and therefore unpredictable use of various other devices.2 Arbitrary localization of the "place of wrong," arbitrary "characterizations" (e.g., procedure, contract), arbitrary resort to public policy, and even occasional arbitrary flight into renvoi, that "puerile" concept "of violently prejudiced literature,"3 are some of the devices which have been employed.
  • Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

    Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2006-2020, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2020 Edition Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut A Guide to Resources in the Law Library This guide is no longer being updated on a regular basis. But we make it available for the historical significance in the development of the law. Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Section 1: Spousal Alienation of Affection ............................................................ 4 Table 1: Spousal Alienation of Affections in Other States ....................................... 8 Table 2: Brown v. Strum ................................................................................... 9 Section 2: Criminal Conversation ..................................................................... 11 Table 3: Criminal Conversation in Other States .................................................. 14 Section 3: Alienation of Affection of Parent or Child ............................................ 15 Table 4: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ............................................ 18 Table 5: Campos v. Coleman ........................................................................... 20 Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations, Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit [email protected] Alienation-1 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent
  • Casenotes: Torts—Family Law—Criminal Conversation—Judicial Abrogation of the Civil Action for Adultery. Kline V. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 414 A. 2D 929 (1980)

    Casenotes: Torts—Family Law—Criminal Conversation—Judicial Abrogation of the Civil Action for Adultery. Kline V. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 414 A. 2D 929 (1980)

    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 10 Article 8 Issue 1 Fall 1980 1980 Casenotes: Torts — Family Law — Criminal Conversation — Judicial Abrogation of the Civil Action for Adultery. Kline v. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 414 A.2d 929 (1980) Sherry Hamburg Flax University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Flax, Sherry Hamburg (1980) "Casenotes: Torts — Family Law — Criminal Conversation — Judicial Abrogation of the Civil Action for Adultery. Kline v. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 414 A.2d 929 (1980)," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 10: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol10/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TORTS - FAMILY LAW - CRIMINAL CONVERSATION - JUDICIAL ABROGATION OF THE CIVIL" ACTION FOR ADULTERY. KLINE v. ANSELL, 287 Md. 585, 414 A.2d 929 (1980) . I. INTRODUCTION In Kline v. Ansel~ 1 the Court of Appeals of Maryland abolished the common law cause of action for criminal conversation. Prior to the Kline decision, a husband was afforded a remedy against his wife's paramour for being the partner in her adulterous acts.2 The court has now reversed its position due to the anachronistic policy underlying this tort,3 its incompatibility with today's sense of per­ sonal and sexual freedom of women,4 and its inherent violation of Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment.
  • United States District Court for the District

    United States District Court for the District

    Case 2:16-cv-00081-CWD Document 96 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO JUSTIN T. GARRIOTT and SUSAN GARRIOTT, husband and wife; Case No. 2:16-cv-00081-CWD JASPYN GARRIOTT, JUSTIN GARRIOTT JR., JMG1, a minor, and MEMORANDUM DECISION AND JMG2, a minor, ORDER (Dkt. 85) Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, PLLC, an Idaho corporation; PAUL PASCHALL, MD; ERIC CHUN, MD, Defendants. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendants’ first partial motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 85), filed on March 31, 2017. The parties have filed their responsive briefing and the matter is ripe for the Court's consideration. This matter involves a medical malpractice claim brought against two emergency room physicians. His four children each bring a claim for loss of consortium based upon the injury to their father, Justin Garriott Sr. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Case 2:16-cv-00081-CWD Document 96 Filed 07/14/17 Page 2 of 9 The Court conducted a hearing regarding the motion on July 11, 2017, at which the parties appeared and presented their arguments. After carefully considering the parties’ written memoranda, relevant case law, and the parties’ arguments, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. FACTS According to the complaint, Plaintiffs Justin T. Garriott and Susan Garriott are husband and wife, and they have four children. They reside together in Spokane County, Washington. On March 25, 2015, Justin Garriott began feeling ill, and he visited an urgent care center. On March 27, 2015, Mr.
  • Michigan Environmental Law Deskbook 2Nd Edition: Chapter 13

    Michigan Environmental Law Deskbook 2Nd Edition: Chapter 13

    Michigan Environmental Law Deskbook Common Law Second Edition Chapter 13 13 Common Law Donnelly W. Hadden I. Introduction §13.1 ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Nuisance .................................................................................................................................... 1 A. In General §13.2.................................................................................................................. 1 B. Public Nuisance §13.3 ........................................................................................................ 1 C. Private Nuisance ................................................................................................................. 3 1. In General §13.4............................................................................................................ 3 2. “No-Fault” Nuisance §13.5 ........................................................................................... 4 3. “Negligent” Nuisances §13.6 ........................................................................................ 4 4. Violation of Statute or Regulation as Nuisance §13.7 .................................................. 5 D. Parties .................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Plaintiffs §13.8 .............................................................................................................. 6