Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencemotionsummary judgmentcase lawcommon lawmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendanttrialjury trial

Related Cases

Serota v. M. & M. Utilities, Inc., 55 Misc.2d 286, 285 N.Y.S.2d 121
View Case »
Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 300 N.C. 669, 268 S.E.2d 504
View Case »
Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177, 33 IER Cases 389
View Case »
St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 1 Media L. Rep. 1586
View Case »
Cadle Co. v. Hobbs, 673 So.2d 1363, 95-1639 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ferriter v. Daniel O’Connell’s Sons, Inc., 381 Mass. 507, 413 N.E.2d 690, 11 A.L.R.4th 518

Facts

Michael Ferriter, while working as a carpenter for Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc., was seriously injured when a load of wood beams fell on him. The incident occurred on May 18, 1979, resulting in Ferriter being paralyzed from the neck down. His wife, Judith, and their two minor children, Jason and Leah, filed a complaint alleging that they suffered mental anguish and health impairment from witnessing Ferriter's injuries in the hospital, as well as loss of consortium and society. The plaintiffs sought $3,000,000 in damages.

According to the statement of agreed facts, the plaintiffs are the wife and two children, aged five and three, of Michael Ferriter. While working as a carpenter for the defendant, Michael was seriously injured on May 18, 1979.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the children could claim loss of companionship and society due to their father's injuries and whether the claims for mental anguish and impaired health were barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The employer does not assert that the wife's and children's counts for loss of consortium and society fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Rule

The court held that a child has a viable claim for loss of a parent's companionship and society caused by a defendant's negligence, and that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not bar claims for loss of consortium and society by family members.

We hold that the Ferriter children have a viable claim for loss of parental society if they can show that they are minors dependent on the parent, Michael Ferriter.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by recognizing that the children's claim for loss of companionship was valid under common law principles, which protect familial relationships. The court also found that the claims for mental anguish and impaired health were sufficiently supported by the facts, as the plaintiffs first saw Ferriter's injuries in the hospital, allowing for an inference of shock that met the proximity requirements established in prior case law.

We think that the present case is within the principles set out in Dziokonski. According to the complaint, the defendant's acts and the employee's injuries caused the plaintiffs to suffer physical impairment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of the employer's motion for summary judgment regarding the claims for loss of consortium and society, but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the claims for mental anguish and impaired health, allowing those claims to proceed.

We affirm the judge's first ruling, but reversed the second ruling.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court allowed their claims for loss of consortium and society to proceed, emphasizing the importance of familial relationships and the validity of the children's claims.

The plaintiffs, Judith A. Ferriter and her minor children, Jason R. and Leah N., filed a complaint and demand for jury trial on June 7, 1979, in the Superior Court for Hampden County.

You must be