Legal Opinion

High v. Howard

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1992No. 91-892PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

In a recent decision of this court, we noted that it was not yet the propitious time to review the issue of whether a child may maintain a cause of action for loss of parental consortium against a tortfeasor who negligently or intentionally injures the child’s parent. Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 94, 585 N.E.2d 384, 393. Now is such time. Appellants urge us to recognize a cause of action for loss of parental consortium. We decline to create such a cause of action.

This court has previously refused to recognize a cause of action by a child for loss of parental consortium.…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Paugh v. HanksOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. De Angelis v. Lutheran Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Borer v. American Airlines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1977

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Miller v. CurrieCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
  2. Miller v. CurrieCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
  3. Gallimore v. Children's Hospital Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Heiner v. MoretuzzoOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. MuethingOhio Supreme Court · 1992

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API