Leonardis v. Morton Chemical Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Smith v. Bell Sports, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 1996)
- Schroeder v. Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1989)
- Friedman v. Klazmer (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)
- Sykes v. Zook Enterprises, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
- Dunphy v. Gregor (N.J. 1994)
- Elden v. Sheldon (Cal. 1988)
- Ledger v. Tippitt (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)
- Gillespie-Linton v. Miles (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)
- Mason v. United States (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 2022)
- Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates (3d Cir. 1995)
- Sprague v. Kaplan (Pa. 1990)
- Comstock v. Kleckner (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas 1988)
- Leibensperger v. Key (Chester County Court of Common Pleas 1986)
- Stager v. Schneider (D.C. 1985)
- Curry v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1984)
- Felch v. Air Florida, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1983)
- Harris v. Sherman (Vt. 1998)
- Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co. (Mass. 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ARCHIBALD LEONARDIS AND CHARLOTTE KROESCHEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
MORTON CHEMICAL COMPANY, DIVISION OF MORTON NORWICH PRODUCTS, A CORPORATION, AND ASTORLYN CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Before Judges ALLCORN, FRANCIS and MORTON I. GREENBERG.
Harold Sherman, argued the cause for appellants (Mandel, Wysoker, Sherman, Glassner & Weingartner, attorneys; George W. Conk, on the brief).
John B. LaVecchia, argued the cause for the respondent Morton Chemical Company (Connell, Foley & Geiser, attorneys; *11 John B. LaVecchia, of counsel; Kathleen S. Murphy, on the brief).
No brief was filed by or on behalf of respondent Astorlyn Corporation.
The opinion of the court was delivered by ALLCORN, P.J.A.D.
The right of recovery for loss of consortium resulting to a wife by reason of an injury to her husband, is founded upon the marriage relation. Absent such relationship, the right does not exist, and thus no recovery may be had for loss thereof. Ekalo v. Construction Service Corp., 46 N.J. 82 (1965). Cf. N.J.S.A. 37:1-10; Cassano v. Durham, 180 N.J. Super. 620 (Law Div. 1981). See, also, Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378, 387 (1979); Parkinson v. J. & S. Tool Co., 64 N.J. 159, 164 (1974). We find no merit in and decline to follow Bulloch v. U.S., 487 F. Supp. 1078 (D.N.J. 1980). Accordingly, the right to recovery for loss of consortium does not inhere in a woman not married to her male consort who is injured.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.