it is an item included in the subject matter. In all the definitions consortium includes conjugal relations. Webster defines conjugal as:
'of or pertaining to marriage, the married state or married persons in their mutual relations; matrimonial, connubial.'
In Ballantine's Law Dictionary consortium is defined as:
'The right of a husband to the conjugal fellowship of his wife, to her company, co-operation, and aid in every conjugal relation.'
It appears to be impossible to add a more precise discussion of this subject then as contained in Neuberg v. Bobowicz, 1960, 401 Pa. 146, 162 A.2d 662, which is the latest dissertation on consortium by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In that case the court cites several of the older cases to the effect that a husband may have an award for loss of consortium even though there is no specific evidence on the point at issue. For instance, in Neuberg v. Bobowicz, supra, 401 Pa. at page 154, 162 A.2d at page 665, Justice Eagen speaks of the quantum of evidence required to support a verdict for a loss of consortium. He quotes from an older case ( Kelley v. Mayberry Township, 154 Pa. 440, 26 A. 595):
'* * * That services, in the ordinary sense, were not rendered at all, would be immaterial and irrelevant, except as the fact might, under some circumstances, tend to show a want of conjugal regard and affection, and thereby mitigate the damages. * * *' (Cases cited)
As trial judge in a busy court, the issue of loss of consortium often arises. On many occasions counsel will ask a husband whether sexual relations have been lessened by reason of an injury to a wife. This interrogation has been permitted but it is not believed that it is a prerequisite to consideration by the jury of the possible diminution in sexual relationship as being an element of damages.
As Justice Eagan further said in Neuberg v. Bobowicz, supra, 401 Pa. at page 154, 162 A.2d at page 666:
'* * * Thus, the fact of marriage to the injured spouse is itself apparently enough to support a finding for recovery, because 'in such cases jurors, endowed with at least a modicum of common sense, may be supposed to have some knowledge of ordinary affairs of life.' Kelley v. Mayberry Township, (1893) supra, 154 Pa. at page 448 (440), 26 A. (595), at page 597. * * *'
Finally, in my view of the evidence, the jury came to a correct and just conclusion. Taking defendant counsel's resume of the plaintiff wife's injuries as set forth in his brief, it is apparent that the jury could find and did find that the husband's loss of consortium permitted a substantial award in his favor. In my opinion the award to the plaintiff husband was moderate and reasonable. The motion for new trial will be denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.