Opinion
No. E2000-02729-COA-R3-CV.
Filed September 19, 2001. May 7, 2001 Session.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamblen County No. 99CV068 Kindall T. Lawson, Judge.
Reversed; Case Remanded
David C. Lee and J.D. Lee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellants, John R. Maloney and Cheryl C. Caruso, individually and as surviving parents of Emily LeAnn Maloney, deceased.
Edward G. White, II, and Amy V. Hollars, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Morristown Clinic Corp., d/b/a East Tennessee OB/GYN, P.C., and William B. Harris, Jr., M.D.
C. J. Gideon, Jr., and Edward A. Hadley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Hospital of Morristown, Inc., d/b/a Lakeway Regional Hospital.
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Houston M. Goddard, P.J., and D. Michael Swiney, J., joined.
OPINION
On August 31, 2001, the Supreme Court released its opinion in the case of Hancock v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, S.C. No. E1999-00169-SC-R11-CV, 2001 WL 997372 (Tenn., filed August 31, 2001). In Hancock , the Supreme Court held that T.C.A. § 29-26-116 "allows recovery of filial consortium damages as a part of the pecuniary value of the decedent's life." 2001 WL 997372, at *3. In the instant case, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, which claims are predicated on the plaintiffs' allegations that they "have permanently lost the companionship, affection, consortium and love of their daughter." In so acting, the trial court resolved against the plaintiffs an issue — whether T.C.A. § 29-26-116 countenances a recovery of filial consortium damages — on which there was then no direct legal authority. The Supreme Court's decision in Hancock has now addressed that issue by affirmatively recognizing such a claim. The plaintiffs in the instant case have stated a legally-cognizable claim for filial consortium damages as a part of the pecuniary value of their infant daughter's life.
The word "filial" is defined as "[o]f, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter." Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary 477 (1994).
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Costs on appeal are taxed against the appellees. This case is remanded for further proceedings, pursuant to applicable law.