## Facts

- Phyllis Belcher was seriously injured in an automobile collision allegedly caused by Sherry L. Goins’s negligence.
- Phyllis’s daughter, Stephanie L. Belcher, was 18 years old, unemancipated, and living with her mother at the time.
- Stephanie was not involved in the collision and asserted no direct physical injury.
- Stephanie sought damages for (a) loss or impairment of her mother’s love, companionship, and consortium; (b) mental anguish from the impaired relationship; and (c) losses corresponding to the value of services Stephanie provided while caring for her injured mother.
- Goins moved to dismiss Stephanie’s claims; the circuit court denied dismissal and certified questions of law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

## Issues

1. Whether West Virginia recognizes a cause of action by a child for loss or impairment of parental consortium arising from serious, nonfatal, negligently inflicted injuries to a parent.
2. Who qualifies as a “child” entitled to bring such a claim.
3. What interests are included within “parental consortium,” including whether mental anguish is recoverable.
4. How damages for parental consortium are assessed and limited to avoid duplication with the injured parent’s damages.
5. Whether the child’s consortium claim ordinarily must be joined with the injured parent’s personal-injury action.
6. Whether comparative negligence attributable to the injured parent reduces the child’s recovery.

## Decision

- The court recognized a cause of action for loss or impairment of parental consortium in favor of (a) minor children and (b) dependent physically or mentally handicapped children of any age, when a third party seriously injures the parent and severely damages the parent-child relationship.
- The court defined “parental consortium” to include intangible relationship benefits (society, companionship, comfort, guidance, advice, protection, care, and assistance) and to include sorrow and mental anguish concerning impairment of the relationship.
- The court held the parent may recover for diminished pecuniary ability to support the child, while the child may recover only for nonpecuniary parental-consortium elements.
- The court required that a parental-consortium claim ordinarily be joined with the injured parent’s action against the tortfeasor.
- The court held that any comparative negligence attributed to the injured parent reduces the child’s parental-consortium recovery.
- Prior inconsistent precedent was overruled to the extent it conflicted with recognition of the claim.

## Legal Principles

- Unemancipated minors have the same right to legal redress for wrongs as others.
- “Parental consortium” is a legally cognizable interest consisting of specified nonpecuniary benefits of the parent-child relationship, including sorrow and mental anguish tied to impairment of that relationship.
- Eligible plaintiffs are (a) minor children, and (b) physically or mentally handicapped dependent children of any age, and the parent’s injury must be serious and must severely damage the parent-child relationship.
- Damages assessment may consider the child’s age, the nature of the relationship, the child’s emotional and physical characteristics, and the availability of other consortium-giving relationships.
- To prevent double recovery, pecuniary support losses belong to the injured parent’s claim, while the child’s claim is limited to nonpecuniary parental-consortium elements.
- Because the child’s claim is secondary and arises from the same conduct as the parent’s injury claim, the parent’s comparative fault proportionally reduces the child’s recovery.
- A parental-consortium claim ordinarily should be litigated together with the parent’s personal-injury action.

## Conclusion

West Virginia recognized a limited child’s cause of action for loss or impairment of parental consortium resulting from a third party’s serious, nonfatal injury to a parent, defined the recoverable nonpecuniary elements (including related mental anguish), required ordinary joinder with the parent’s action, separated damages to avoid duplication, and applied the parent’s comparative negligence to reduce the child’s recovery.


Belcher v. Goins, 184 W. Va. 395, 400 S.E.2d 830 (W. Va. 1990)