Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DAMAGES—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—Conn. Sup. Ct.: Connecticut parents cannot claim loss of consortium of child, (Feb 13, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Connecticut followed the trending majority not to recognize a cause of action for loss of filial consortium by a parent of a minor child.

In a products liability case brought against a car seat and stove manufacturer by parents whose infant daughter was severely injured from burns, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for loss of filial consortium by a parent of a minor child. While jurisdictions are split, in answering the certified question from the federal district court in Connecticut, the Connecticut Supreme Court followed the trending majority from other states not to recognize the common law cause of action by parents of a minor child. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the mutual dependence and reliance between spouses and a child’s dependence on his or her parents differs from the parent’s reliance on a child (L.L. v. Newell Brands, Inc., SC21005 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Feb. 11, 2025)).

A mother strapped her infant daughter into a car seat and placed the car seat on the kitchen counter next to an electric range stove. The car seat caught fire as a result of the faulty design or production of both the car seat and stove. The child suffered severe burns and injuries. The parents of the injured child brought claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) in the federal district court in Connecticut against the manufacturer of the car seat, Newell Brands, Inc. sold under the Graco brand, the manufacture of stove, General Electric, the retailer that sold the car seat, Target, and other defendants. The parents also brought claims for the loss of their minor child’s consortium, alleging that due to the child’s injuries, the parents lost the consortium, society, care, and companionship of their daughter, and will continue to suffer loss in the future. The federal district court in Connecticut certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court whether Connecticut recognizes a parent’s claim for loss of filial consortium when the minor child suffered severe injuries as a result of the defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct [see Products Liability Law Daily’s Jan. 24, 2024 analysis].

Loss of filial consortium. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for loss of filial consortium by a parent for a minor child. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with the Texas Supreme Court that although the parent-child relationship deserves special protection, the parent-child relationship is not reciprocal like husband and wife and a child who is dependent on a parent. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the mutual dependence and reliance between spouses and a child’s dependence on his or her parents differs from the parent’s reliance on a child. The injury that is experienced by a parent whose child sustains a severe injury is a form of emotional distress rather than the type of relational loss or loss of society for which the tort of loss of consortium affords a remedy.

Comparison to other states. The Connecticut Supreme Court recognized that 16 out of 26 states that have considered the issue have recognized that a cause of action exists. But only seven states have recognized the cause of action solely based on the common law. The other states that recognize the cause of action relied on an express statute from the legislature or by judicially arising by necessary implication from a wrongful death statute. Courts in 13 states have expressly declined to adopt any common law cause of action for loss of filial consortium. The Connecticut Supreme Court recognized that there is merit to both positions. But most of the states that recognize claims limited to the loss of a child’s services and income do so under a different label and do not recognize loss of filial consortium claims.

Justice Steven D. Ecker concurred with the opinion, while Justice Andrew J. McDonald dissented.

Growing trend. Although a handful of states recognized the cause of action in the 1980s and 1990s, that trend has largely run its course. In the past 25 years, only Utah has embraced recognizing a common law cause of action. During that same time period, the courts of at least 10 other states have declined the opportunity to recognize the cause of action. The Connecticut Supreme Court followed the trending majority and declined to recognize the cause of action for loss of filial consortium, answering the certified question in the negative.

The case is No. SC21005.

Attorneys: James J. Healy (Cowdery, Murphy & Healy, LLC) for L. L. Rachel M. Bradford (Howd & Ludorf, LLC) for Newell Brands, Inc.

Companies: Newell Brands, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory DamagesNews MotorEquipmentNews HouseholdProductsNews ConnecticutNews