This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Gary Hara Deshotel v Atchison Statement of facts- Wife seeks recovery for the loss of consortium- Originally denied because damages are too hard to calculate, damages would be a “hardship to defendant”, double recovery, and others would seek consortium. - Legislature originally determined the case unfit. - Appealed. Concise statement of the issue in the case- In the event that the wife sues concurrently with the husband, is the wife granted equal recoveries to proceed with prosecution for damages of loss of consortium? Statement of the applicable law- Married Woman’s Acts- Hitaffer v Argonne Co.- Gist v French - Prosee on Torts (2d ed, 1955), 701 et seq.; Rest., Torts, 693.- Work v Campbell- Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed.- Consortium- Meek v Pacific Electric Apply the rule to the facts of the particular case- His right to consortium is no greater than hers. Any interference is a violation. If one is granted rights, while the other is not, would be denial of equal protection granted by the...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/03/2008 for the course BLAW 320 taught by Professor Rhoads during the Fall '07 term at CSU Long Beach.
- Fall '07