Zlotoff v. Perugini, No. 0101277 (Jun. 16, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Zlotoff v. Perugini, No. 0101277 (Jun. 16, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5087

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 16, 1992

DocketNo. 0101277

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5087 (Zlotoff v. Perugini, No. 0101277 (Jun. 16, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zlotoff v. Perugini, No. 0101277 (Jun. 16, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5087 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#102) After hearing held on defendant's motion to strike, it is hereby ORDERED:

Consortium is an element of the marital relationship. Shatluck v. Gulliver, 40 Conn. Sup. 95, 100 (1984); Seger v. Dunne, 3 CSCR 233 (1988). "[It is] usually defined as encompassing the services of the wife, the financial support of the husband, and the variety of intangible relations which exist between spouses living together in marriage." Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, 176 Conn. 485, 487 (1979). "No appellate court has yet addressed squarely the issue of whether, under any circumstances, a cause of action for the loss of filial consortium lies." Maloney v. Lensink, 17 Conn. App. 130, 141 n. 7 (1988). however compelling support for such cause for relief may be, this court, in the instant context and in the absence of appellate pronouncement, is constrained to join the weight of trial court authority and reject the claim.

The motion to strike counts four, five, six, eight, nine, and ten of the complaint is granted.

GAFFNEY, J. CT Page 5088

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#102) After hearing held on defendant's motion to strike, it is hereby ORDERED:

Consortium is an element of the marital relationship. Shatluck v. Gulliver, 40 Conn. Sup. 95, 100 (1984); Seger v. Dunne, 3 CSCR 233 (1988). "[It is] usually defined as encompassing the services of the wife, the financial support of the husband, and the variety of intangible relations which exist between spouses living together in marriage." Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, 176 Conn. 485, 487 (1979). "No appellate court has yet addressed squarely the issue of whether, under any circumstances, a cause of action for the loss of filial consortium lies." Maloney v. Lensink, 17 Conn. App. 130, 141 n. 7 (1988). however compelling support for such cause for relief may be, this court, in the instant context and in the absence of appellate pronouncement, is constrained to join the weight of trial court authority and reject the claim.

The motion to strike counts four, five, six, eight, nine, and ten of the complaint is granted.

GAFFNEY, J. CT Page 5088

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zlotoff-v-perugini-no-0101277-jun-16-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack