loss of consortium claim in New Jersey

2007Although New Jersey recognizes that a loss of consortium claim is derivative only insofar as it is dependent upon spousal injury, and that the damages awarded are different from those available *941 to the person suffering direct injury, Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Const. Co., 161 N.J. 178, 190-91 , 735 A. 2d 1142 (1999), we are aware of no precedent holding that jurisdiction must be maintained in an inconvenient forum simply because loss of consortium claims would not be recognized by the alternative court.

2007Although New Jersey recognizes that a loss of consortium claim is derivative only insofar as it is dependent upon spousal injury, and that the damages awarded are different from those available *941 to the person suffering direct injury, Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Const. Co., 161 N.J. 178, 190-91 , 735 A. 2d 1142 (1999), we are aware of no precedent holding that jurisdiction must be maintained in an inconvenient forum simply because loss of consortium claims would not be recognized by the alternative court.

2019Super. 436, 444 (App. Div. 1999); see Horvath v. Rimtec Corp., 102 F.Supp.2d 219, 236 (D.N.J. 2000) (determining the right to recov er on a loss of consortium claim depends on the existence of tortious conduct on the part of the defendants).

2017Accordingly, it has presented no argument on appeal regarding liability, the jury's finding as to permanency or the trial judge's decision that the $200 jury verdict should be set aside. 3 A-0879-14T1 the lowest value that a reasonable jury could find." Citing Tronolone v. Palmer, 224 N.J.

2008See generally Coyne, supra, 182 N.J. at 493 , 867 A.2d 1159 § explaining that (1) " palpably unreasonable' means more than ordinary negligence, and imposes a steep burden on a plaintiff”; (2) "[t]he term palpably unreasonable' implies behavior that is patently unacceptable under any given circumstances and it must be manifest and obvious that no prudent person would approve of its course of action or inaction[;]' ” (3) "even if a plaintiff were to establish the prerequisites for negligence liability on a public entity, he could not prevail if the action the public entity took or failed to take

2008See generally Coyne, supra, 182 N.J. at 493 , 867 A.2d 1159 § explaining that (1) " palpably unreasonable' means more than ordinary negligence, and imposes a steep burden on a plaintiff”; (2) "[t]he term palpably unreasonable' implies behavior that is patently unacceptable under any given circumstances and it must be manifest and obvious that no prudent person would approve of its course of action or inaction[;]' ” (3) "even if a plaintiff were to establish the prerequisites for negligence liability on a public entity, he could not prevail if the action the public entity took or failed to take

2004A plaintiff’s industriousness also may be relevant in determining the value of their loss of opportunity to enjoy other activities, such as playing in a band or performing community service, see Ocasio v. Amtrak, 299 N.J.Super. 139, 157 , 690 A.2d 682, 691 (App.Div.1997), as well as a spouse’s loss of consortium claim.

2004A plaintiff’s industriousness also may be relevant in determining the value of their loss of opportunity to enjoy other activities, such as playing in a band or performing community service, see Ocasio v. Amtrak, 299 N.J.Super. 139, 157 , 690 A.2d 682, 691 (App.Div.1997), as well as a spouse’s loss of consortium claim.

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Niehus v. Liberio, 973 F. 2d 526, 532-34 (7th Cir.1992) (in a § 1983 action, discussing the nature of a loss of consortium claim and holding that spouse cannot recover damages under the Constitution for loss of consortium); Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F. 2d 1489, 1506-07 (10th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs not entitled to loss of consortium damages because § 1983 creates a federal remedy only for the party injured); Stallworth v. City of Cleveland, 893 F. 2d 830, 838 (6th Cir.1990) (dismissing husband's request for recovery for loss of consortium under § 1983 because wife, rather than her husba

2003See Niehus v. Liberio, 973 F. 2d 526, 532-34 (7th Cir.1992) (in a § 1983 action, discussing the nature of a loss of consortium claim and holding that spouse cannot recover damages under the Constitution for loss of consortium); Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F. 2d 1489, 1506-07 (10th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs not entitled to loss of consortium damages because § 1983 creates a federal remedy only for the party injured); Stallworth v. City of Cleveland, 893 F. 2d 830, 838 (6th Cir.1990) (dismissing husband's request for recovery for loss of consortium under § 1983 because wife, rather than her husba

2003See Niehus v. Liberio, 973 F. 2d 526, 532-34 (7th Cir.1992) (in a § 1983 action, discussing the nature of a loss of consortium claim and holding that spouse cannot recover damages under the Constitution for loss of consortium); Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F. 2d 1489, 1506-07 (10th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs not entitled to loss of consortium damages because § 1983 creates a federal remedy only for the party injured); Stallworth v. City of Cleveland, 893 F. 2d 830, 838 (6th Cir.1990) (dismissing husband's request for recovery for loss of consortium under § 1983 because wife, rather than her husba

2003See Niehus v. Liberio, 973 F. 2d 526, 532-34 (7th Cir.1992) (in a § 1983 action, discussing the nature of a loss of consortium claim and holding that spouse cannot recover damages under the Constitution for loss of consortium); Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F. 2d 1489, 1506-07 (10th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs not entitled to loss of consortium damages because § 1983 creates a federal remedy only for the party injured); Stallworth v. City of Cleveland, 893 F. 2d 830, 838 (6th Cir.1990) (dismissing husband's request for recovery for loss of consortium under § 1983 because wife, rather than her husba

2003As the court in Wiers, supra, 925 F.Supp. at 1095-96 , stated: there is no authority to consider a loss of consortium claim deriving from a claim of injury by an injured spouse brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Bor., 12 F. 3d 1205 , 1215 n. 10 (3d Cir.1993), appeal after remand, 91 F. 3d 515 (1992), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1142 , 117 S.Ct. 1311 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 474 (1997), appeal after remand 211 F. 3d 1262 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 906 , 121 S.Ct. 1230 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 139 (2001) ("[Defendants] contend that [plaintiff's] claim for loss of consortium is not recognized under section 1983 ....

2003See Niehus v. Liberio, 973 F. 2d 526, 532-34 (7th Cir.1992) (in a § 1983 action, discussing the nature of a loss of consortium claim and holding that spouse cannot recover damages under the Constitution for loss of consortium); Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F. 2d 1489, 1506-07 (10th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs not entitled to loss of consortium damages because § 1983 creates a federal remedy only for the party injured); Stallworth v. City of Cleveland, 893 F. 2d 830, 838 (6th Cir.1990) (dismissing husband's request for recovery for loss of consortium under § 1983 because wife, rather than her husba

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Ctr., 850 P. 2d 1179, 1184-85 (Utah 1992) (finding that parents of tortiously injured adult child could not recover for loss of consortium in light of legislative abolition of spousal consortium cause of action).

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen

2000Co., 31 F. 3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother's loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W. 2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588 , 647 P. 2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligen