Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 380, 2001-Ohio-44.]

ROLF ET AL. v. TRI STATE MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY ET AL.
[Cite as Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 380.]
Torts -- Emancipated children seek to recover damages for the loss of
consortium they suffered as a result of injuries to their father -- Adult
emancipated children may recover for loss of parental consortium.
(No. 00-1329 -- Submitted January 31, 2001 -- Decided April 25, 2001.)
ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No 3:99CV7687.
__________________
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
Adult emancipated children may recover for loss of parental consortium.
__________________

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J. This matter is before us as a certified
question of state law from the United States District Court, Northern District,
Western Division. In its certification order the federal district court states:

"Kenneth Martin, father of plaintiffs Bonnie L. Rolf and David Martin
(both emancipated adults living apart from their parents), was seriously and
permanently injured on October 8, 1996, in Allen County, Ohio, when his vehicle
was struck from behind by a semi-trailer truck being operated by Dallas K.
Pelcher, in the course and scope of his employment for the defendant Tri State
Motor Transit Company. As a result of the accident, Kenneth Martin's cognitive
functions and ability to control basic bodily functions have been seriously
impaired. For the rest of his life he will require convalescent care and continuing
medical treatment.

"* * *

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

"Plaintiffs Bonnie L. Rolf and David Martin filed the instant proceeding in
the certifying Court on November 8, 1999. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for
the loss of consortium that they have suffered as a result of the injuries to their
father."

Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII, the federal district court has certified the
following question of law to this court for our determination:

"Can emancipated adult children maintain a claim under Ohio law for the
loss of consortium caused by injuries to a parent?"

For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question in the
affirmative.

This court has previously recognized a minor child's cause of action for
loss of parental consortium. Gallimore v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1993), 67
Ohio St.3d 244, 617 N.E.2d 1052, paragraph two of the syllabus. We are now
asked to extend the holding of Gallimore to allow adult children to pursue a
similar cause of action for parental loss of consortium.

The rationale advanced in favor of recognizing a minor child's loss-of-
parental-consortium claim in Gallimore was taken, in large part, from Justice
Resnick's dissenting opinion in High v. Howard (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 82, 86-96,
592 N.E.2d 818, 821-827, a decision that Gallimore overruled.1 These policy
arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) since a minor child can recover
similar damages under the wrongful death statute, R.C. 2125.02, when a parent
dies, he or she should also be allowed to recover for loss of parental consortium
when a parent is injured but not killed; (2) since Ohio already recognizes spousal
and filial consortium claims, it should likewise recognize a minor's loss-of-

1. The primary issue in Gallimore was whether Ohio should recognize a cause of action for filial
consortium, i.e., an action brought by parents to recover damages arising out of their minor child's
injuries. 67 Ohio St.3d 244, 246, 617 N.E.2d 1052, 1053-1054. In recognizing such an action, id.
at paragraph one of the syllabus, we then addressed the corresponding cause of action for a minor
2

January Term, 2001
parental-consortium claim since the claimant's loss consists of many of the same
elements in each type of consortium claim, including the loss of love, affection,
and companionship. Therefore, to deny a loss-of-parental-consortium claim
would relegate the parent-child relationship to second-class status behind spousal
consortium claims or filial consortium claims; and (3) a minor child should be
allowed to recover for loss of parental consortium because the child suffers a very
real and debilitating loss when a parent is injured and deserves to be compensated
for that loss.

Petitioners argue that these policy reasons apply to adult children as well
as minors. Consequently, they maintain that they should not be denied their right
to recovery simply because they are adults. Respondent Tri State, however,
rejects these arguments and instead contends that there are more persuasive
reasons for refusing to extend loss-of-parental-consortium claims to adult,
emancipated children.2

The primary reason why respondent urges us to limit the holding of
Gallimore to minor children is its belief that while minors suffer a compensable
loss when a parent is injured, this loss is compensable only because minors are
dependent upon a parent for their care and emotional guidance. By contrast,
respondent maintains that the loss is so much less severe with adult children
because they are no longer reliant upon a parent for financial or emotional
support. Based upon this inherent difference, respondent concludes that we
should not extend loss-of-parental-consortium claims to adult children.

child's claim of loss of parental consortium. Since the only issue before this court concerns loss
of parental consortium, we are limiting our discussion to that issue.
2. Respondent contends that the fact that an adult child may recover damages under the wrongful
death statute is irrelevant and does not create an anomaly. However, in Gallimore, we found this
incongruity to be a relevant consideration in recognizing a parent's claim of loss of consortium of
a minor child. Gallimore v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 244, 249-250, 617
N.E.2d 1052, 1056. We adhere to that rationale in this case as well.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

We reject the reasoning advanced by respondent. The fact that an adult
child's relationship with a parent differs from that of a minor child does not
provide us with justification for refusing to recognize an adult child's loss-of-
parental-consortium claim. In Gallimore, we held that consortium may include
services, society, companionship, comfort, love, guidance, and solace. Id., 67
Ohio St.3d 244, 617 N.E.2d 1052. The essence of a parental-consortium claim is
that a child is compensated for a harm done or for losses suffered as a result of
injury to the parent and to the parent-child relationship. Mogill, And Justice For
Some: Assessing the Need to Recognize the Child's Action for Loss of Parental
Consortium (1992), 24 Ariz.St.L.J. 1321, 1324-1325. Certainly, both minor and
adult children whose parent has been injured have suffered a loss that fits within
this definition. In that regard, we agree with the sentiment expressed by the court
in Nelson v. Four Seasons Nursing Ctr. (Okla.App.1996), 934 P.2d 1104, 1105,
when it stated:

"There is simply no good reason to afford the personal right of
companionship and the parent-child relationship less protection in cases involving
adult children who seek to recover for injury to the parent-child relationship. In
cases where the parent-child relationship is destroyed or nearly destroyed by the
tort of the defendant, the affected children, both minors and adults alike, should
be allowed to maintain a cause of action for loss of parental consortium."

Furthermore, while it is true that minor children are more dependent upon
their parents to satisfy their basic needs, as noted by one law review article, many
adults actually renew their reliance on their parents when they reach middle age.
Hammar, Breaking the Age Barrier in Alaska: Including Adult Children in Loss
of Filial Consortium Actions (1995), 12 Alaska L.Rev. 73, 85. Therefore, just as
minor children look to their parents for emotional support, those adult children
who continue to enjoy a close relationship with their parents still depend upon
their parents for affection, advice, and guidance as they become older.
4

January Term, 2001
Consequently, when a parent is seriously injured, the adult child suffers an injury
in being deprived of that parent's love and guidance. Therefore, regardless of the
age of the child, the loss to the parent-child relationship is real and should not be
minimized.

Therefore, we find that it is irrational to deny recovery for loss of parental
consortium simply because the child has reached the age of majority. The fact
that a child turns eighteen does not erase the need for parental guidance. As one
commentator so aptly notes: "The parent-child relationship does not end when
the child becomes eighteen. It endures throughout life and can be characterized
by love, care and affection for the duration." Id., 12 Alaska L.Rev. at 83. In that
regard, it is important to recognize that " `[e]ven adult and married children have
the right to expect the benefit of good parental advice and guidance.' " Audubon-
Exira Ready Mix, Inc. v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR. Co. (Iowa 1983), 335 N.W.2d
148, 150, quoting Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc. (Iowa 1969), 170 N.W.2d
632, 665.

The Arizona court in Howard Frank, M.D., P.C. v. Maricopa Cty.
Superior Court (1986), 150 Ariz. 228, 232, 722 P.2d 955, 959, reiterated this
rationale when recognizing a filial consortium claim (brought by parents to
recover for injuries sustained by their adult child), when it stated:

"Surely nature recoils from the suggestion that the society, companionship
and love which compose filial consortium automatically fade upon
emancipation[,] while common sense and experience teach that the elements of
consortium can never be commanded against a child's will at any age. The filial
relationship, admittedly intangible, is ill-defined by reference to the ages of the
parties and ill-served by arbitrary age distinctions. Some filial relationships will
be blessed with mutual caring and love from infancy through death while others
will always be bereft of those qualities. Therefore, to suggest as a matter of law
5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
that compensable consortium begins at birth and ends at age eighteen is illogical
and inconsistent with common sense and experience."

This rationale applies with equal force in the context of an adult
emancipated child's cause of action for loss of parental consortium. The facts of
this case demonstrate how great this loss is and why adult children deserve to be
compensated. Here, the petitioners' father suffered a traumatic brain injury, is
physically and mentally impaired, and will require custodial care for the
remainder of his life. Petitioners have, for all practical purposes, lost the essence
of the relationship they once enjoyed with their father. Because of his debilitating
injuries, they can no longer enjoy life experiences with their father nor can they
turn to him for advice, guidance, or emotional support. Certainly, these adult
children deserve to be compensated for the tragic losses sustained just as minor
children do.

In conclusion, we find no legitimate reason to limit recovery for loss of
parental consortium to minor children. Consequently, we hold that adult
emancipated children may recover for loss of parental consortium. As we have
now recognized an emancipated adult child's loss-of-consortium claim, these
individuals, who were previously denied compensation due to an artificial age
barrier, may now seek the legal redress they are entitled to for the losses they have
suffered.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.

COOK, J., concurs in judgment.
__________________

Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., and W. Craig Bashein; Paul W. Flowers
Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers, for petitioners.
6

January Term, 2001

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, and William H. Heywood III, for
respondent.

Calhoun, Kademenos & Heichel Co., L.P.A., and Janet L. Phillips, in
support of petitioners for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
__________________
7