policy is not connected with the purification of Massachusetts courts or the immunization of Massachusetts defendants who have been acting illicitly in Massachusetts.
'My conclusion finds some support in a decision of the Swiss Federal Court which held that where the wrong occurred in Switzerland, a plaintiff, subject of and domiciled in Denmark, could bring an action in Switzerland for disruption of marriage, despite the contrary Danish law.'
It seems that the basic reason for Judge Wyzanski's applying the law of Massachusetts was a 'balancing of interests' with the decision that Massachusetts had a greater interest than Pennsylvania, the marital domicile.
The nature of the right to, or of, consortium must be considered in determining the basis of the plaintiff's claim in this case. This nature is discussed, defined and described in many texts and recorded cases. The Court refers especially to the case of Hipp v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 182 N.C. 9, 108 S.E. 318, 18 A.L.R. 873, citing Flandermeyer v. Cooper, 85 Ohio St. 327, 98 N.E. 102, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 360, which, in turn, cited Cooley on Torts (3rd Ed., p. 477). The Court refers further to Hinnant v. Tide Water Power Co., 189 N.C. 120, 126 S.E. 307, 37 A.L.R. 889; Pratt v. Daly, 55 Ariz. 535, 104 P.2d 147, 130 A.L.R. 341, which, in turn, quotes approvingly Foot v. Card, 58 Conn. 1, 18 A. 1027, 6 L.R.A. 829. The Court also refers to the Restatement of the Laws treatment of 'Torts', Sec. 683, comment d, and to Prosser's Law of Torts at page 685. In action for loss of consortium, loss must be evidenced to establish a cause of action. The 'change in the state of mind' must be evidenced by some external conduct. Logically, then, there is no cause of action until there is evidence of the loss of consortium, but this essential element of the cause of action occurs only at the matrimonial domicile and, consequently, under the general conflicts rule, the law of the matrimonial domicile will govern. The Court, accordingly, grants the defendant's motion for judgment non obstante verdicto. Counsel will submit appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.