Liff v. Schildkrout, 49 N.Y.2d 622 (1980)
Under New York law, a surviving spouse cannot maintain a common-law cause of action for loss of consortium due to the death of their spouse; any remedy for such loss must be based on statutory authority, and loss of consortium is not a recoverable element of damages in a wrongful death action under EPTL 5-4.3.
Summary
These consolidated cases address whether a surviving spouse can sue for loss of consortium due to the wrongful death of their spouse, either as a separate common-law action or as part of a statutory wrongful death claim. The New York Court of Appeals held that no common-law action exists for loss of consortium due to death, as this area is preempted by statute. Furthermore, the court held that loss of consortium is not a “pecuniary injury” recoverable under New York’s wrongful death statute (EPTL 5-4.3), reaffirming a longstanding interpretation that excludes damages for grief, loss of society, and affection.
Facts
Liff v. Schildkrout: Joseph Liff died due to Dr. Schildkrout’s malpractice. His estate sued for pain and suffering before death and wrongful death. The widow sought to amend the complaint to add a claim for loss of consortium.
Grant v. Guidotti: Patricia Grant died during a C-section. Her husband, as administrator, sued for wrongful death, loss of parental guidance, and his loss of consortium more than two years after her death.
Ventura v. Consolidated Edison Co.: Anthony Ventura died in a gas explosion. His estate sued for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering. After a finding of liability against Consolidated Edison, the widow sought to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for loss of consortium.
Procedural History
Liff v. Schildkrout: Special Term allowed the amendment for loss of consortium only during the decedent’s conscious pain. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the certified question.
Grant v. Guidotti: Special Term dismissed the complaint against Macalino due to the statute of limitations and lack of standing for the loss of consortium claim. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Ventura v. Consolidated Edison Co.: Trial Term denied the motion to amend. The Appellate Division reversed, holding loss of consortium is a pecuniary injury. The Court of Appeals reviewed the certified question.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a surviving spouse can maintain a common-law cause of action for loss of consortium due to the wrongful death of their spouse, independent of the statutory wrongful death action.
2. Whether loss of consortium can be claimed as an element of damages within a wrongful death action under EPTL 5-4.3.
Holding
1. No, because the common law in New York does not recognize suits for wrongful death outside of statutory authority, and the legislature has preempted this area.
2. No, because the statutory language of EPTL 5-4.3 limits damages to “pecuniary injuries,” which does not include loss of consortium.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the absence of a common-law cause of action for wrongful death in New York, coupled with the existence of a statutory right (EPTL 5-4.1), precludes a separate action for loss of consortium. The court deferred to the legislature’s role in defining the scope of remedies for wrongful death, stating that the right to sue for injury due to another’s death must be founded in statutory authority.
Regarding damages under EPTL 5-4.3, the court emphasized that the “pecuniary injuries” limitation has been consistently interpreted to exclude recovery for grief, loss of society, affection, and conjugal fellowship, which are all elements of loss of consortium. While acknowledging that loss of consortium can be measured in monetary terms (citing Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co.), the court maintained that the legislature’s intent to limit damages in wrongful death actions to pecuniary losses should be respected. The court stated, “The Legislature, by including the pecuniary injury limitation in its statutory scheme, clearly intended that damages for loss of consortium should not be recoverable in wrongful death actions. The courts, under such circumstances, are not free to consider the relative merits of the arguments in favor of, or in opposition to, this limitation for the Legislature has ‘struck the balance for us.’” The Court reaffirmed that any change to this principle must come from the legislature, not the courts.