However, we are aware of language in the body of one opinion of the Court which, perhaps, suggests that the claim at issue is not recognized in this jurisdiction. Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971), involved an action by minor children against their father's second wife for alienation of the affections of their father. The Court, after noting a split of authorities on the point, held, in syllabus point 1 of Wallace, that "[a]t common law there is no right or cause of action in favor of a minor child against a third person for causing the alienation of affections of his [or her] parent[.
As we previously recognized in Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W.Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971), the language of West Virginia Code § 56–3–2a is lacking in ambiguity with its clear abolishment of only two causes of action-breach of promise to marry and alienation of affections. 155 W.Va. at 579, 184 S.E.2d at 333 (“[T]he statute abolishes the common law action of breach of promise to marry and the common law action of alienation of affections....”)
This survey provides a backdrop to analyze the certain remedy provision found in Article III, Section 17 of our Constitution. Our only case which mentions the certain remedy provision is Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971), overruled on other grounds, Belcher v. Goins, 184 W. Va. 395, 400 S.E.2d 830 (1990), where we upheld the right of the legislature to enact W. Va. Code, 56-3-2a, the statute abolishing the common law cause of action of breach of promise to marry and alienation of affections. After mentioning Article III, Section 17, we pointed out that there was no provision in our constitution that "guarantees the existence of [these] common law cause[s] of action[.]"
"); Tanner v. Rite Aid of West Virginia, Inc., 194 W. Va. 643, 651 n. 12, 461 S.E.2d 149, 157 n. 12 (1995) ("It is the business of the law to remedy wrongs . . ., even at the expense of [dismissing an indictment and releasing a prisoner], and it is a pitiful confession of incompetence on the part of any court of justice to deny relief on such grounds."); Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 575, 184 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1971) ("'The maxim, "Ubi Jus, ibi remedium", liberally translated, declares that a legal wrong is the resultant of the violation of a legal right, for which the law provides a remedy." (citation omitted)).
Gilman v. Choi, 185 W. Va. 177, 186, 406 S.E.2d 200, 209 (1990), overruled on other grounds as stated in Mayhorn v. Logan Med. Found., 193 W. Va. 42, 454 S.E.2d 87 (1994). See also Robinson, supra; Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634 (1991); and Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971), overruled on other grounds as stated in Belcher v. Goins, 184 W. Va. 395, 400 S.E.2d 830 (1990). This syllabus point originally referenced Article VIII, § 21 of the state constitution which was the relevant section prior to the 1974 Judicial Reorganization Amendment.
See W. Va. Const. art. V, § 1. With little discussion, Appellant argues that the cap effectively constitutes a legislative remittitur for any verdict that exceeds $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages. As in Robinson, this Court has on many occasions acknowledged the constitutional basis for legislative alteration of the common law. 186 W. Va. at 727, 414 S.E.2d at 884 (stating "that the general authority of the legislature to alter or repeal the common law is expressly conferred by article VIII, section 13 of the Constitution of West Virginia") (quoting Lewis, 185 W. Va. at 694, 408 S.E.2d at 644); accord Gilman v. Choi, 185 W. Va. 177, 185-86, 406 S.E.2d 200, 208-09 (1990) (stating "[c]ertainly the Legislature can change the common law" and "the indisputable fact [is] that the legislature has the power to change the common law of this State"),overruled on other grounds as stated in Mayhorn v. Logan Med. Found., 193 W. Va. 42, 454 S.E.2d 87 (1994); Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 580, 184 S.E.2d 327, 333-34 (1971) (recognizing that "Article VIII, Section 21 . . . provides in part that `Such parts of the common law . . . shall be and continue the law of the State until altered or repealed by the legislature'"), overruled on other grounds as stated in Belcher v. Goins, 184 W. Va. 395, 406 S.E.2d 830 (1990). This power to alter the common law has been recognized to "`necessarily include[] the power to set reasonable limits on recoverable damages in causes of action the legislature chooses to recognize.'"
Vol. 1997); Syl. pt. 2, Weaver v. Union Carbide Corp., 180 W. Va. 556, 378 S.E.2d 105 (1989); Syl. pts. 1 and 4, Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Belcher v. Goins, 184 W. Va. 395, 400 S.E.2d 830 (1990). John replies that he has stated a valid claim upon which to obtain relief from the defendants' alleged tortious interference with his parental relationship with Baby Boy Conaty.
See 1969 W. Va. Acts ch. 101. In Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971), we found W. Va. Code, 56-3-2a, to be constitutional. A majority of jurisdictions, like West Virginia, have abolished the tort of alienation of affections either by statute or judicial decision.
sue addressed here has been to disallow such an action by a minor.Id.See also Edler v. MacAlpine-Downie, 180 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1950); Mode v. Barnett, 235 Ark. 641, 361 S.W.2d 525 (1962); Rudley v. Tobias, 84 Cal.App.2d 454, 190 P.2d 984 (1948); Taylor v. Keefe, 134 Conn. 156, 56 A.2d 768 (1947); Hunt v. Chang, 60 Haw. 608, 594 P.2d 118 (1979); Wheeler v. Luhman, 305 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 1981); Whitcomb v. Huffington, 180 Kan. 340, 304 P.2d 465 (1956); Nelson v. Richwagen, 326 Mass. 485, 95 N.E.2d 545 (1950); Miller v. Kretschmer, 374 Mich. 459, 132 N.W.2d 141 (1965); Hale v. Buckner, 615 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. App. 1981); Kleinow v. Ameika, 19 N.J. Super. 165, 88 A.2d 31 (1952); Katz v. Katz, 197 Misc. 412, 95 N.Y.S.2d 863 (1950); Roth v. Parsons, 16 N.C. App. 646, 192 S.E.2d 659 (1972), cert. denied, 282 N.C. 582, 193 S.E.2d 745 (1973); Kane v. Quigley, 1 Ohio St.2d 1, 203 N.E.2d 338 (1964); Nash v. Baker, 522 P.2d 1335 (Okla. App. 1974); Garza v. Garza, 209 S.W.2d 1012 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948); Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971); Scholberg v. Itnyre, 264 Wis. 211, 58 N.W.2d 698 (1953); see Annot., 60 A.L.R.3d 931 (1974). Currently, only two jurisdictions exist (Illinois and Minnesota) that recognize a minor's right to bring an action for the alienation of affection of his or her parent.
In the face of this constitutional mandate the circuit court's interpretation of the statute must yield. In Wallace v. Wallace, 155 W. Va. 569, 184 S.E.2d 327 (1971) this Court stated that article 3, section 17 of the West Virginia Constitution has no application to an action for alienation of affections or for the breach of promise to marry, for such actions do not affect or relate to an injury to any person in his person, property or reputation. Because of the apparent inconsistencies between our holding today and this statement in Wallace, we offer the following commentary on the Wallace case. Wallace addressed the narrow issue of whether a minor child has a cause of action against a third party who causes the alienation of affections of his parent. Traditionally, the common-law action of alienation of affections is viewed as an action brought in favor of one spouse for the loss of affections of the other spouse.