Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Torts

TortsLoss of consortiumtortsloss of consortiummarriagecohabitantsunmarried partnerssummary judgment

Facts

According to Dolores Feliciano's deposition and affidavit, she and Marcial Feliciano lived together as husband and wife for about twenty years before Marcial was injured in 1981, although they were not legally married until 1983. During that period, she used Marcial's surname, they held themselves out as husband and wife, had joint savings accounts, filed joint tax returns, jointly owned their home, depended on each other for companionship, comfort, love, and guidance, and maintained an exclusive sexual relationship. Dolores sought damages for loss of consortium based on injuries Marcial allegedly sustained through Costa's wrongful conduct in the course of Costa's employment by Rosemar.

Issue

May a person recover for loss of consortium when, at the time of the injured partner's injury, the couple had a long-term, marriage-like cohabiting relationship but were not legally married?

Rule

A claim for loss of consortium is limited to spouses within a legal marriage. A person who was not married to the injured party at the time of the injury may not recover for loss of consortium, even if the parties had a stable, long-term, marriage-like relationship.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Nina Alvarez and Daniel Price lived together for eighteen years, raised a child together, shared a mortgage, and introduced each other as spouses, but they never obtained a marriage license. Daniel was seriously injured when a delivery truck owned by Harbor Mill Logistics struck him, and Nina sued the company for loss of consortium.

How should the court rule on Nina's consortium claim?

Explanation. The claim should be denied. The governing rule is that loss of consortium recovery is confined to spouses in a legal marriage, and a long-term cohabiting relationship is not an adequate substitute. The majority emphasized both the Commonwealth's interest in marriage and the need for a clear, reasonably ascertainable boundary limiting tort liability. (Derived from Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co. (n.d.).)