Williams v. Alabama Neon Sign Co.

304 So. 2d 895, 293 Ala. 454
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 5, 1974·No. SC 862·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether a wife may maintain an action for loss of her husband’s consortium in Alabama.

The trial court, following Smith v. United Construction Workers, District 50, 271 Ala. 42, 122 So.2d 153, dismissed the action on the ground that the wife had no cause of action. This court overruled Smith, supra, in Swartz v. United States Steel Corporation, 293 Ala. 439, 304 So.2d 881, this day decided. On the authority of Swartz, supra, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

HEFLIN, C. J., and HARWOOD, BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and JONES, JJ., concur. MERRILL, COLEMAN, MADDOX and McCALL, JJ., dissent.

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

Williams v. Alabama Neon Sign Co., 304 So. 2d 895, 293 Ala. 454 (Ala. 1974).

304 So. 2d 895 (Williams v. Alabama Neon Sign Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Buckalew
456 So. 2d 778 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1984)
Weaver v. G.D. Searle & Co.
558 F. Supp. 720 (N.D. Alabama, 1983)