L. L. v. Newell Brands, Inc.

Citations

• 351 Conn. 262

Syllabus

The plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants in federal court for, inter alia, the defendants' alleged violations of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (§ 52-572m et seq.). The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut certified to this court, pursuant to statute (§ 51-199b (d)), a question of law concerning whether Connecticut law recognizes a parent's claim for loss of filial consortium of a minor child who was severely injured as result of a defendant's allegedly tortious conduct. Held: This court concluded that Connecticut law does not recognize a cause of action for loss of filial consortium. Although this court has recognized causes of action for loss of spousal consortium and loss of parental consortium, the justifications for imposing liability for third-party emotional injuries in those circumstances, namely, the mutual dependence and reliance between spouses and a child's depen- dence on his or her parents, did not support the recognition of a cause of action for loss of filial consortium, as the relational interests at issue were sufficiently distinguishable. The injury that is experienced by a parent whose child sustains a severe and potentially disabling injury is a form of emotional distress, rather than the type of relational loss or loss of society for which the tort of loss of consortium affords a remedy. Although a substantial minority of other jurisdictions allow the parent of an injured child to recover for loss of filial consortium under certain circum- stances, this court found more persuasive the reasoning of those jurisdictions that have recognized a clear conceptual and practical distinction between parental consortium and filial consortium, which militated against this court's recognition of a common-law cause of action for loss of filial con- sortium. (One justice concurring separately; one justice dissenting) Argued September 19, 2024—officially released February 11, 2025