
Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions
Oklahoma Jury Instructions- Civil
Chapter 4
Section Instruction 4.7 - LOSS OF PARENTAL CONSORTIUM- ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
Instruction No. 4.7
LOSS OF PARENTAL CONSORTIUM- ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY
[Plaintiff] has sued [Defendant] for loss of parental consortium as a result of the injury to [Parent]. Parental consortium is defined as the love, care, companionship, and guidance given by a parent to a minor child. For [Plaintiff] to recover on this claim you must find all the following:
A. [Parent] is entitled to recover damages from [Defendant] for [his/her] injuries;
B. [Parent]'s injury is permanent.
C. [Plaintiff] was the minor [or incapacitated dependent] child of [Parent] at the time [Parent] sustained the injuries.
D. As result of the injuries sustained by [Parent], [Plaintiff] sustained a loss of parental consortium.
Notes on Use
This Instruction is drafted for cases where a minor or incapacitated dependent child seeks recovery on account of permanent injuries to a parent. Instruction No. 4.8 covers the measure of damages for loss of parental consortium. These Instructions may have to be modified as the scope of the cause of action for loss of parental consortium becomes more clearly defined by future decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Comments
The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for loss of parental consortium in Williams v. Hook, 804 P.2d 1131, 1132 (Okla. 1990), a case involving a permanent injury to the parent of two minor children. The Supreme Court reasoned that it would be anomalous if the law were to allow a child recovery for the loss arising from the death of a parent, see 12 O.S. 1991 § 1053 [12-1053], but would not allow recovery for an equivalent loss arising from a permanent injury to the parent. 804 P.2d at 1137. Because the Williams case created a new cause of action for parental consortium, it applies only prospectively to claims accruing after the issuance of mandate on February 15, 1991. Heston v. People's Elec. Coop., 824 P.2d 1137 (Okla. 1992).
Williams involved factual circumstances that resulted in the Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly allowing a cause of action where "minor children or incapacitated dependent children" seek recovery "for the permanent loss of parental consortium" arising from injury to the parent by a third party. The Committee has drafted paragraphs B and C of this Instruction in light of Williams. Factual circumstances may be presented to the trial court that raise the question whether a cause of action for loss of parental consortium is available to adult children or for temporary injuries to a parent. Instruction No. 4.7 may require modification depending on the trial court's resolution of these questions or subsequent opinions of an appellate court.
Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document| Cite | Name | Level |
|---|
| None Found. |
| Cite | Name | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases | |||
| Cite | Name | Level | |
| 1990 OK 136, 804 P.2d 1131, 62 OBJ 53, | Williams v. Hook | Discussed | |
| 1992 OK 4, 824 P.2d 1137, 63 OBJ 280, | Heston v. People's Elec. Co-op. | Cited | |