DOCSLIB.ORG

Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina John M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina John M Campbell Law Review Volume 34 Article 3 Issue 2 Spring 2012 2012 Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina John M. Kirby Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Judges Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John M. Kirby, Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina, 34 Campbell L. Rev. 293 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. KIRBY- FINAL 4/12/2012 9:06 AM Kirby: Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina Minor’s Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina JOHN KIRBY INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 295 I.SUBSTANCE OF THE CLAIMS ARISING FROM INJURY TO MINOR ............... 296 A. Minor’s Claims ...................................................................... 296 1. Substantive Claims .......................................................... 296 a. Landowner Liability .................................................. 297 i. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine ............................. 301 b. Minor’s Claims Against Caregivers and Other Persons ...................................................................... 305 2. Defenses to Minor’s Claim .............................................. 308 a. Contributory Negligence .......................................... 308 b. Statute of Limitations ................................................ 313 c. Parent-Child Immunity ............................................ 316 d. Supervision by Parents or Other Adults ................... 319 e. Pre-injury Release ..................................................... 321 3. Minor’s Damages ............................................................. 323 a. Medical Bills .............................................................. 324 i. Necessaries ......................................................... 324 ii. Parent’s Waiver of Claim .................................... 327 b. Lost Earnings ........................................................... 328 c. Liens and Subrogation Claims ................................. 329 B. Parents’ Claims ..................................................................... 332 1. Substantive Claims .......................................................... 333 a. Medical Expenses for Minor’s Injury ........................ 334 b. Loss of Services and Earnings of Minor ................... 336 c. Miscellaneous Claims of Parents .............................. 338 2. Whether Claim is Owned by Mother or by Father ......... 340 3. Defenses to Parents’ Claims ............................................ 342 II.PROCEDURES FOR FILING SUIT FOR MINOR .......................................... 345 A. Guardian ad Litem ................................................................. 345 John M. Kirby practices litigation and other areas of law in North Carolina. Mr. Kirby graduated from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1993. Mr. Kirby can be contacted at [email protected] or through his website at www.legal-nc.com. 293 Published by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law, 2012 1 KIRBY- FINAL 4/12/2012 9:06 AM Campbell Law Review, Vol. 34, Iss. 2 [2012], Art. 3 294 CAMPBELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 34:293 1. Procedure for Appointment ............................................ 350 2. Persons who May Serve as GAL ...................................... 351 3. Conflicts of Interest by GAL ........................................... 352 4. Duties and Powers of GAL .............................................. 356 5. Liability of GAL ............................................................... 361 6. Payment of GAL .............................................................. 364 B. Joinder of Claims .................................................................. 365 C. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of Minor’s Action .................................................................................... 365 D. Minor’s Attorney ................................................................... 368 1. Conflicts of Interest ......................................................... 373 2. Attorney’s Fees ................................................................ 375 III.SETTLEMENT OF MINOR’S CLAIM ........................................................ 382 A. Persons Having Authority to Enter Settlement for Minor .... 382 B. Need for Court Approval ...................................................... 384 C. Repudiation of Settlement Pending Approval ...................... 391 D. Release of Claims .................................................................. 394 E. Procedural Considerations ................................................... 399 1. Procedural Vehicles ......................................................... 399 2. Notice of Proceeding ....................................................... 401 3. Presentation of Evidence at Hearing ............................... 402 4. Rulings on Motion for Approval of Settlement ............... 404 5. Order Approving Settlement ........................................... 405 6. Handling of Minor’s Proceeds ......................................... 408 a. Judgments ................................................................. 408 b. Settlements ................................................................ 409 i. Payment to Clerk ................................................ 409 ii. Structured Settlements ....................................... 411 iii. Payment to Guardian or Others ......................... 412 c. Implications of Settlement on Minor’s Eligibility for Government Programs ........................................ 413 F. When Order Approving Minor’s Settlement May Be Reversed, Overturned or Vacated ......................................... 415 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 421 http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr/vol34/iss2/3 2 KIRBY- FINAL 4/12/2012 9:06 AM Kirby: Minor's Personal Injury Actions and Settlements in North Carolina 2012] MINOR’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS 295 INTRODUCTION This Article addresses the issues that are peculiar to claims of mi- nors in North Carolina.1 Persons who are the age of majority prosecute and settle claims that raise numerous substantive and procedural issues. These issues can be compounded, however, when the claimant is a mi- nor. The distinct issues that arise with a minor’s claim include: that a minor is often held to a different standard of conduct; that other persons are held to a higher or different standard of conduct toward a minor; that other persons may have a duty to protect the minor; that courts generally protect the interests of minors; that minors cannot enter bind- ing contracts; and that injuries to minors typically create claims in other parties, for example, the minor’s parents. This Article addresses the settlement and litigation of these claims. While this Article focuses on claims arising from a personal injury to the minor, many of the same legal issues are also raised in other contexts in which the minor’s interests are affected. As shown by many cases cited in this Article, much of the case law in North Carolina addressing the procedures for settling and adjudicating minors’ rights has arisen in the context of a minor’s interest in an estate or real property. North Carolina does not have many statutes addressing the sub- stance or procedure for minor’s claims; therefore, most of the applicable law is common law developed by the courts. In contrast, many other states have statutes setting forth procedures for these claims.2 Most of the law from other jurisdictions is, however, similar to North Carolina law. The common law from those jurisdictions is useful in analyzing and predicting North Carolina law, and this Article therefore references cases from other jurisdictions in areas where North Carolina has no go- verning authority. Editorial Note: Campbell Law Review has included parallel citations to the North Carolina reporters per the request of the author. 1. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 48A-2 (2011) (“A minor is any person who has not reached the age of 18 years.”). Note that for purposes of the Uniform Transfers to Mi- nors Act (UTMA), a minor is defined as any person under twenty-one years old. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 33A-1(11). For a brief discussion of emancipated minors, see infra notes 614–16 and accompanying text. 2. See, e.g., FLA. STAT. § 744.301(2)(a), (b) (2011); PA. R. CIV. P. 2039 (2011); S.C. CODE ANN. § 62-5-433 (2011). Published by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law, 2012 3 KIRBY- FINAL 4/12/2012 9:06 AM Campbell Law Review, Vol. 34, Iss. 2 [2012], Art. 3 296 CAMPBELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 34:293 I. SUBSTANCE OF THE CLAIMS ARISING FROM INJURY TO MINOR Minors generally have the same claims, and are subject to the same rules and defenses as if they were adults. Thus, a minor can sue for neg- ligence, breach of contract, libel, assault etc.; however, there are some causes of action where the minor’s claim is different in some respects from the same claim brought by an adult. Further, an injury to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:13-Cv-00479-JB-WPL Document 140 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 39
    Case 1:13-cv-00479-JB-WPL Document 140 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO TEDDIE WILLIAMS, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Rainan Samayoa; RAINAN SAMAYOA, a Mentally Challenged Person and MARIA CONTRARAS, Conservator & Guardian of Rainan Samayoa, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CIV 13-0479 JB/WPL BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, a Body Corporate of the State of New Mexico, for Itself and Its Public Operations Including UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER and Its Components, the UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HOSPITAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO PSYCHIATRIC CENTER and CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Correctional Healthcare Companies Inc.‟s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Medical Negligence, filed January 30, 2014 (Doc. 63)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 7, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether to dismiss Counts IV and V in the Plaintiffs‟ Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Medical Negligence, filed November 26, 2013 (Doc. 30)(“SAC”) -- the Plaintiffs‟ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, respectively -- alleged against Defendant Correctional Case 1:13-cv-00479-JB-WPL Document 140 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 39 Healthcare Companies, Inc. (“Correctional Healthcare”); and (ii) whether to dismiss Count VI -- Plaintiff Teddie Williams‟ claim for loss of consortium stemming from injuries Correctional Healthcare allegedly caused to her son, Plaintiff Rainan Samayoa -- alleged against Correctional Healthcare.
    [Show full text]
  • Malpractice and Emergency Medicine Walter Kuhn, M.D., FACEP
    Malpractice and Emergency Medicine Walter Kuhn, M.D., FACEP Every Emergency Physician fears being sued. Unfortunately, the practice of Emergency Medicine is high risk and malpractice claims stemming from emergency care number about 20% of all claims occurring in hospitals. The Emergency Department is the third riskiest area of the hospital following the operating room and the delivery suite. Malpractice premiums paid by Emergency Physicians have risen dramatically over the last years with a 200 % rise in some States. Lawsuits against Emergency Physicians are not nuisance claims: more than half of legitimate claims involve serious disability or death. Surprisingly, the big payoffs do not go for the missed hard-to-diagnose Zebra conditions. They come from missed bread-and-butter cases such as missed M.I., ectopic pregnancy, appendicitis, meningitis, missed fractures and soft tissue foreign bodies. Half of all patients who file successful lawsuits met standard criteria for hospital admission, yet serious illness was not even considered by the Emergency Physician. As is often said, it is not the one you anticipate that gets you into trouble, but the one you never expect. In other words, if you knew or thought that a patient would have a bad outcome, you would have instituted means to protect both your patient and yourself. Understanding the Law There are two major bodies of legal action; criminal and civil. A criminal action is one in which the state or government sues an individual for a wrongdoing considered against public interest. Examples are murder, rape, theft etc. These are not usually the kind of suits brought against the Emergency Physician unless the physician willfully injured a patient (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 17 Issue 3 Article 7 1968 Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium Keith E. Spero Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Law and Gender Commons, and the Torts Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Keith E. Spero, Wife's Action for Loss of Consortium, 17 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 462 (1968) 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 Keith E. Spero* C ONSORTIUM HAS BEEN DEFINED as one's right to conjugal fellowship and relations with his spouse, and to her company, cooperation and assistance in the marital relationship as a partner in the family unit. Its loss by a husband has long been recognized as compensable if brought about by either the negligent or intentional wrongdoing of another. An action by a husband for loss of consortium allows him to seek recovery for the loss of, or the impaired ability of his wife to perform her usual services in the care of the home, as well as for his loss of her society, companionship and comfort. Common sense would seem to dictate that if a husband has these rights with respect to his wife, the wife would have similar rights to her husband's consortium.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: a Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators Michelle Mcentire
    Campbell Law Review Volume 29 Article 8 Issue 3 Spring 2007 April 2007 Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: A Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators Michelle McEntire Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Michelle McEntire, Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: A Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators, 29 Campbell L. Rev. 761 (2007). This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. McEntire: Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While R Compensating Post-Conception Prenatal Medical Malpractice While Respecting Life: A Recommendation to North Carolina Legislators INTRODUCTION I don't care if it's a boy or a girl, as long as it's healthy. It is the mantra of almost all expectant parents. The statement explicitly expresses the hope for a healthy child and implicitly expresses the desire not to bear a child with birth defects or disease. Modern medicine allows parents to test themselves before conception for genetic problems that could cause defects and to test the fetus after conception for potential or actual defects.1 Approximately 3% to 5% of all fetuses will be affected by a birth defect or serious malforma- tion.2 These defects and disorders account for approximately 30% of infant deaths, and those infants who survive usually face long-term health problems.3 With the advent of prenatal diagnostic procedures came the inevi- table entanglement with abortion rights after Roe v.
    [Show full text]
  • Sibling Consortium: Recognizing the Right to Recovery in Connecticut
    Sibling Consortium: Recognizing the Right to Recovery in Connecticut LAURA ANN RAYMOND† I. INTRODUCTION Over the course of time, consortium claims have expanded to allow damages for different familial relationships. Jurisdictions take distinctive approaches to assessing these sometimes-complex causes of action, with most states rejecting a sibling’s right to bring a loss of consortium claim for the loss of their deceased sibling. This note analyzes the origins of sibling consortium, the arguments for and against recognition of sibling consortium, and ultimately concludes that Connecticut should allow recovery for mourning brothers and sisters. Section II describes the historical origins of consortium claims and the expansion brought forth by evolving social norms. Section III describes the early emergence of loss of consortium claims for siblings in various state court opinions and wrongful death statutes. Section IV explains the current state of sibling consortium in Connecticut firstly by examining the state’s previous parental, child, and spousal consortium holdings. Section V emphasizes the strong reasons in favor of siblings, and later analyses the current arguments against expanding consortium claims in Section VI. Amongst the various reasons for recognition, this note emphasizes the treatment of siblings in foster care and adoption cases, the social research demonstrating the importance of sibling bonds, and the constitutional tort arguments already explored by multiple legal scholars. Section VII ultimately concludes that Connecticut should allow siblings the opportunity to bring consortium actions. II. BACKGROUND A. Brief Definition Modern day consortium is difficult to define because courts and legislatures have actively shaped the meaning in response to changing social patterns and moral attitudes.1 Early common law focused on husbands seeking to recover for the loss of their wife’s inability to perform contractual obligations of a marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • New Tort Rules for Unmarried Partners: the Enhanced Potential for Successful Loss of Consortium and Nied Claims by Same Sex Partners in New Mexico After Lozoya
    Volume 34 Issue 3 Summer 2004 Summer 2004 New Tort Rules for Unmarried Partners: The Enhanced Potential for Successful Loss of Consortium and Nied Claims by Same Sex Partners in New Mexico after Lozoya Flynn Sylvest Recommended Citation Flynn Sylvest, New Tort Rules for Unmarried Partners: The Enhanced Potential for Successful Loss of Consortium and Nied Claims by Same Sex Partners in New Mexico after Lozoya, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 461 (2004). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol34/iss3/4 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr NEW TORT RULES FOR UNMARRIED PARTNERS: THE ENHANCED POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND NIED CLAIMS BY SAME SEX PARTNERS IN NEW MEXICO AFTER LOZOYA FLYNN SYLVEST* I. INTRODUCTION On March 24, 2003, the New Mexico Supreme Court produced a new consortium rule in Lozoya v. Sanchez.' Lozoya made New Mexico the first state in the nation to recognize a consortium claim brought by an unmarried cohabitant to a tort victim.2 The court allowed Sara Lozoya's claim for loss of consortium 3 on the basis of domestic partnership 4 and devised a test for assessing loss of consortium claims for a series of "spouse/partner"5 relationships. 6 Lozoya's new consortium rule paved the way for consortium claims brought by same sex partners in New Mexico and indicated a likely change to the relationship requirement of the New Mexico negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) rule.7 First, this Note will describe the procedural posture and the facts of the consortium issue of two claims addressed in the case.
    [Show full text]