Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-1-106 (2026)
Damages - Spouse's loss of consortium
✓ current as of May 2026
There shall exist in cases where such damages are proved by a spouse, a right to recover for loss of consortium.
Acts 1969, ch. 86, § 1; T.C.A., § 25-109.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. Beard, 104 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2003).
Taylor v. Beard, 104 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2003). “”) No further action by the legislature or the courts took place until recently when, in Jordan v.”
Kinzer v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 451 F. Supp. 2d 931 (M.D. Tenn. 2006). “§ 1367 (a) as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over the that claim. In response to Defendants’ motion, Ms.”
Kilbourne v. Hanzelik, 648 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. 1983). “It provides: "It shall be a misdemeanor for any husband or wife to neglect or fail to provide for his or her spouse who, because of physical disability, is unable to be self-supporting.”
Hunley v. Silver Furniture Mfg. Co., 38 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2001). “The status of the worker’s spouse’s cause of action for loss of consortium as a distinct claim is further supported by the lack of a remedy for the worker’s spouse under our workers’ compensation law.”
Hackford v. Utah Power & Light Co., 740 P.2d 1281 (Utah 1987). “§ 15-5-170 (1976); Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-1-106 (1980); Vermont, Whitney v.”
Swafford v. City of Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 25-1-106 (1980) says that “there shall exist in cases where such damages are proved by a wife, a right to recover for loss of consortium.”
McPeek v. Lockhart, 174 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 25-1-106 provides for a right of recovery of loss of consortium for a person whose spouse is injured.”
Williams v. United States, 754 F. Supp. 2d 942 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 25-1-106. Tennessee courts have defined loss of consortium as “the conjugal fellowship of husband and wife, and the right of each to the company, cooperation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.”
Still Ex Rel. Erlandson v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “Once the justification for the original action was discredited, the courts justified the action, in large part, by concluding that it properly provided compensation for the very losses — comfort, companionship, affection — that previous courts had held noncompensible.”
Clark v. Shoaf, 209 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-1-106 , expressly creating wife’s right to claim loss of consortium).”
In Re Chapman, 424 B.R. 823 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2010). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 25-1-106 (2000) (“There shall exist in cases where such damages are proved by a spouse, a right to recover for loss of consortium.”
McCutchen v. Tipton Cnty., 430 F. Supp. 2d 741 (W.D. Tenn. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 25-1-106 (providing for a right of recovery of loss of consortium for a person whose spouse is injured); McPeek v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.