Harris v. Sherman - 167 Vt. 613, 708 A.2d 1348 (1998)

Rule:

A spouse may bring a loss of consortium claim under Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5431 only if the claimant was legally married to the injured party when that injury occurred.

Facts:

In May of 1995, John Harris allegedly sustained injury in an automobile accident with defendant, William Sherman. At the time of the accident, John and Shannon Harris were engaged to be married; approximately two months later, they became legally wed. John Harris later sued defendants alleging negligent operation and maintenance of their automobile, and based on those injury claims, Shannon Harris claimed loss of consortium. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the consortium claim on the grounds that 12 V.S.A. § 5431 did not allow recovery for loss of consortium arising from injury sustained before marriage. Defendants argued that the loss of consortium statute was enacted for the sole purpose of extending to women the substantive right to claim for loss of consortium, and that the Legislature expressed no intention of otherwise extending or modifying the action's parameters. The superior court granted defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice Sharon's loss of consortium claim. Sharon appealed, contending that the superior court was wrong to dismiss her claim because the plain language of 12 V.S.A. § 5431 allowed "either spouse" to bring a claim for loss of consortium and she was the spouse of the injured party.

Issue:

Could the plaintiff wife maintain a loss of consortium claim, notwithstanding the fact that the injury occurred when the plaintiff wife and the husband were not yet legally married? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that under Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5431, the wife could have maintained a loss of consortium claim only if she had been legally married to the injured party when the injury occurred. Although § 5431 was remedial in nature and thus entitled to a liberal construction, the court concluded that the statute indicated no legislative intent to modify the scope and application of a loss of consortium claim. Consortium was a derivative claim rooted in time, place, and circumstance to the injury.