CompFox AI Summary
Frances D. Krohn sought $250,000 in damages for loss of consortium, alleging her husband, Howard E. Krohn, became impotent after taking the drug MER/29 due to the intentional actions of the defendant, Richardson-Merrell, Inc. The Circuit Court of Davidson County sustained the defendant's demurrer, ruling that a wife has no such cause of action in Tennessee. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The Court reiterated that under Tennessee common law, a wife cannot recover for loss of consortium, regardless of whether the injury to her husband was negligent or intentional, upholding precedent set in Rush v. Great American Insurance Co. The Court also rejected arguments to overturn previous decisions or apply the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to allow such recovery, stating these arguments are properly directed to the Legislature.
Krohn v. Richardson-Merrill, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Frances D. Krohn sought $250,000 in damages for loss of consortium, alleging her husband, Howard E. Krohn, became impotent after taking the drug MER/29 due to the intentional actions of the defendant, Richardson-Merrell, Inc. The Circuit Court of Davidson County sustained the defendant's demurrer, ruling that a wife has no such cause of action in Tennessee. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The Court reiterated that under Tennessee common law, a wife cannot recover for loss of consortium, regardless of whether the injury to her husband was negligent or intentional, upholding precedent set in Rush v. Great American Insurance Co. The Court also rejected arguments to overturn previous decisions or apply the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to allow such recovery, stating these arguments are properly directed to the Legislature.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.