DeWitt v. B & C Machine Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

DeWitt v. B & C Machine Co.

266 N.E.2d 563, 25 Ohio St. 2d 40, 54 Ohio Op. 2d 169, 1971 Ohio LEXIS 577

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1971

DocketNo. 70-287

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 266 N.E.2d 563 (DeWitt v. B & C Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeWitt v. B & C Machine Co., 266 N.E.2d 563, 25 Ohio St. 2d 40, 54 Ohio Op. 2d 169, 1971 Ohio LEXIS 577 (Ohio 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Herbert, J.

The issue presented is whether a wife has an independent action for the loss of her husband’s consortium against a person whose negligence caused her husband’s instantaneous death.

In Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc., supra, we held that the negligent injury of a husband gives rise to a cause of action in favor of his wife for any loss of his consortium which directly and proximately results from such injury. While that decision equalized the rights of a husband and a wife to bring an action for loss of consortium, it did not affect the logical import of Shaweker v. Spinell (1932), 125 Ohio St. 423, 181 N. E. 896, that a spouse may recover only for loss of consortium between the time of injury and death, and did not alter the pleading [42]*42requirements contained in the second paragraph of the syllabus in that case.

The question concerning loss of consortium being the sole issue certified for review, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider, Duncan, Stephenson, Stern and Leach, JJ., concur. StepheNSON, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for CoReigan, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Herbert, J.

The issue presented is whether a wife has an independent action for the loss of her husband’s consortium against a person whose negligence caused her husband’s instantaneous death.

In Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc., supra, we held that the negligent injury of a husband gives rise to a cause of action in favor of his wife for any loss of his consortium which directly and proximately results from such injury. While that decision equalized the rights of a husband and a wife to bring an action for loss of consortium, it did not affect the logical import of Shaweker v. Spinell (1932), 125 Ohio St. 423, 181 N. E. 896, that a spouse may recover only for loss of consortium between the time of injury and death, and did not alter the pleading [42]*42requirements contained in the second paragraph of the syllabus in that case.

The question concerning loss of consortium being the sole issue certified for review, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider, Duncan, Stephenson, Stern and Leach, JJ., concur. StepheNSON, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for CoReigan, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 N.E.2d 563, 25 Ohio St. 2d 40, 54 Ohio Op. 2d 169, 1971 Ohio LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewitt-v-b-c-machine-co-ohio-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack