## Facts

- Mrs. Casey, an Oregon resident, sued two Washington corporations (doing business in Oregon) for loss of consortium arising from injuries to her husband, Donald J. Casey.
- The corporations operated as a joint venture constructing a dam project in Washington and built an access road to the site.
- On or about September 9, 1963, Mr. Casey, a business invitee, drove a pipe-loaded tractor on the access road in Washington; the road gave way and the vehicle overturned into a ravine.
- The complaint alleged defendants negligently constructed and maintained the road and failed to warn of its dangerous condition, causing Mr. Casey permanent injuries.
- Mrs. Casey sought damages for loss of sexual relations, companionship, comfort, and her husband’s earning capacity.
- Washington law did not recognize a wife’s negligence-based loss-of-consortium action; Oregon had a statute recognizing such a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the existence of a wife’s loss-of-consortium claim is governed by the law of the place of injury (Washington) or by Oregon law where the spouses were domiciled and suit was filed.
2. Whether Oregon’s consortium statute could be treated as remedial/procedural and applied by an Oregon court to an injury occurring in another state.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed dismissal after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer.
- The court applied Washington substantive law as the law of the place of the tort.
- Because Washington did not recognize the wife’s consortium action, the complaint failed to state a claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under lex loci delicti, substantive rights in tort are governed by the law of the state where the injury occurred.
- A spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of the underlying personal injury tort for choice-of-law purposes.
- Whether a cause of action exists for loss of consortium is a substantive question, not merely procedural; a forum will not apply its own statute to create a claim barred by the governing foreign substantive law.

## Conclusion

Oregon held that Washington law controlled a wife’s consortium claim arising from a Washington accident, and because Washington did not recognize such a claim, the action was properly dismissed on demurrer.


Casey v. Manson Constr. & Eng’g Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (Or. 1967)