Loss of consortium is a term used in the
law of
torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a
family relationship due to injuries caused by a
tortfeasor. Loss of consortium is not a historical tort under
English common law but arrived via
statute as
Lord Campbell's act (9 and 10 Vie. c. 93). Without a common basis its application differs drastically among other
common law jurisdictions and does not exist at all in several. It is often cause for
compensatory damages to be awarded.
The action was originally paired in a Latin expression "per quod servitium et consortium amisit", translated as "in consequence of which he lost her society and services". The relationship between husband and wife has, historically, been considered worthy of legal protection. The interest being protected under consortium, is that which the head of the household (father or husband) had in the physical integrity of his wife, children, or servants. The undertone of this action is that the husband had an unreciprocated proprietary interest in his wife. The deprivations identified include the economic contributions of the injured spouse to the household, care and affection, and sex. The action originated in the 18th century and was once available to a father against a man who was courting his daughter outside of marriage, on the grounds that the father had lost the consortium of his daughter's household services because she was spending time with her beau.
Loss of consortium has been brought into the law as a cause of action by civil codes, for example, in Maine[1] or into the common law by action of justices. Other jurisdictions view loss of consortium as an element of damages, not as an independent cause of action; in which case the claim must be brought under another tort. As an example, in suits brought under Washington State's wrongful death statute, loss of consortium is an element of damages [2]. While some jurisdictions only recognize spousal consortium (usually considered as sex) others recognize parental consortium (love and affection) as well allowing children to recover for the death or disability of a parent and vice versa.
In Baker v. Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493, Lord Ellenborough made the much disputed, and unsupported, statement that an action for loss of consortium will not lie when the act, omission, or negligence in question results in the wife's death. Similarly, consortium will not lie where the husband and wife's marital bond has been severed by divorce (Parker v Dzundza [1979] Qd R 55).
