Kimberly G. Harris, Individually and as Next Friend of her Minor Child v....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION KIMBERLY G. HARRIS, Individually and ) as Next Friend of her Minor Child, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 26-00115-KD-B ) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC., d/b/a ) FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE; ) and BRIDGESTONE RETAIL ) OPERATIONS, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER This action is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Kimberly G. Harris’ Claim for Loss of Parental Consortium filed by Defendants Bridgestone Americas, Inc., d/b/a Firestone Complete Auto Care, and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC (Defendants) (doc. 3) and Harris’ response (doc. 5). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED and Count Five is DISMISSED.

I. Background Plaintiff Harris filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama alleging claims arising from services she received for her vehicle at the Firestone Auto Care Center in Daphne, Alabama and injuries to her feet which she incurred while placing her child in the vehicle (doc. 1, p. 16-23). Harris claimed consumer fraud under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act and breach of contract (Counts One and Two) based upon services to her vehicle. She claimed premises liability and negligence (Counts Three and Four) based upon injuries to her feet allegedly resulting from Firestones’ failing to maintain a hazard free walkway and/or parking lot and parking her “vehicle in a manner that obstructed access”. She also claimed loss of parental consortium on behalf of her minor child (Count Five).

Defendants removed the action to federal court on basis of diversity jurisdiction (doc. 1).

They filed an answer and a motion to dismiss (docs. 2, 3). Harris filed a response to the motion (doc. 5).

II. Analysis Defendants move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count Five (doc. 3).

They argue that loss of parental consortium is not a legally cognizable claim under Alabama law, and therefore, Harris failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In response, Harris “informs the Court” that Defendants’ Motion “is due to be granted.” (doc. 5). The Court agrees. In Patterson v. Hays, 623 So. 2d 1142 (Ala. 1993), the Alabama Supreme Court found that under Alabama law, a child does not have the right to pursue a claim for loss of consortium based on injuries to the parent. Id. at 1146. See also Alabama Law of Damages § 20:4 (6th ed.) (January 2026 update) (“The child cannot prosecute a loss of consortium claim for injury to the parent.”) (citing Patterson, 623 Ala. So. 2d at 1146).

III. Conclusion Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Count Five is dismissed.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of April 2026.

s / Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE