Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

ok heres a puzzle for you late night loungers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 01:31 AM
Original message
ok heres a puzzle for you late night loungers
my wife has been in an accident and has had a permanent back injury
she will recover to a great degree and will be able to at some point resume many of her duties.
i am quite frankly thrilled that she will at some point be able to return to work as she loves her work
she has a suit that she will win that will compensate her fully for what limitations she will face in the future

we have been together since 1975 when she was a 15 year old girl and i was a 19 year old guy who flipped for her over a game of egyptian ratfuck.(no touchee for 2 years too like dating a sicilian girl)
we have pretty much been together ever since.
now i cant hug her as she cant take it
i sleep on a couch while im setting up a room here because everytime i roll over it hurts her and we cant sleep together any more
now dont take me out of context here please,but any other forms of activities are off the table.they are off of any other surface as well.
i know its not a pretty picture but we have always been very...affectionate and now we have to deal with so many layers of disappointment(ours) and actual physical pain(hers not mine...i am strong! bull!!)that it doesnt even come up(unintended pun)i know she is hurting over this more than me and if you have been around a woman for 36 years and didnt touch her for the first 2 you can do a 3 to 5 year stretch without breaking a sweat.
today the lawyer asked me if i wanted to file for loss of consortium

here is the puzzle
put a $number on our loss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. My dear SwampG8r...
My heart goes out to you both, for all the pain and loss you're both suffering...

A dollar amount? Millions, I'd say. I can't really think how many millions.

I hope you get it all, and then some...

And I truly hope that she does recover enough to take care of her business, herself, and you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DebJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. I have a suggestion
If you could possibly get a California Queen bed, then you might be able to sleep in the same room/bed
without disrupting her back. I think that is what it is called; it is two separate mattresses put together
to form one bed. I hope I can get one in the near future. I don't have a back injury, but my husband
is 6 ft 7 and large (295 lbs), and it hurts my back to sleep with him in our regular queen bed unless he
can manage to stay on the far side of the bed...weight differential is too much, he pulls down the
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. You may be thinking of the California King
The California King has two box springs but one mattress. The Queen has one box springs and one mattress.

There is a type of mattress that adjusts to different body weights, but I can't think what the name is right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I think you can buy two Twin mattresses and place them on a King
box spring and get the same effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. well let's see. At Las Vegas prices (cause its the best) once a night
at 5 years X 365 days ..........

Just trying to make some humor out of a bad situation ...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. OK. The loss to YOU is prolly $75 million, or more... and the loss to HER.... well...
Hey there-

good to see you on the board but sorry about the difficulties.

nothing but good thoughts to both of you and if I'm ever in FLA I'm lookin you up!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Loss of consortium is more than a loss of sex.

An abuse of discretion, however, did occur when the trial court denied Beverlyn a new trial on her consortium claim. Beverlyn argues that substantial, unrebutted evidence concerning the adverse impact which the injury had on the couple's marriage was presented and that therefore she was entitled to recover damages for loss of consortium. See Jones v. Double D. Props., Inc, 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).See, e.g., Villatoro v. Concepcion, 671 So.2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Ward v. Hillsborough County School Bd., 447 So.2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Several of the cases relied upon by Beverlyn, including Jones, involved unrebutted evidence that the spouse's injury had a substantial adverse impact on the marital relationship. In Jones, the total damages for the injured husband were $349,505 while the wife received a zero verdict on her consortium claim. The appellate court held that a new trial on the consortium claim only was necessitated given the largely unrebutted evidence concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship. This evidence included testimony that the couple no longer had an active social life, that the wife needed to tend to her husband's basic needs like bathing and dressing and often take time off work to drive her husband to his appointments.

The concept of damages for loss of consortium is necessarily a vague and subjective one left largely to the discretion of the jury. It is intended to compensate the spouse of an injured person for past and future loss of such intangibles as love, sex, companionship, society, comfort and solace, and for help in performing one's tasks about the household. Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 573 So.2d 876, 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), abrogated on other grounds in Boulis v. Florida Dep't of Transp., 733 So.2d 959 (Fla.1999).

While the evidence in this case does not rise to the level presented in Jones, it is nevertheless well settled that where sufficient undisputed evidence is presented on a consortium claim that would require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law. Bradshaw v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 714 So.2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So.2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), approved, 753 So.2d 60 (Fla.2000); Christopher v. Bonifay, 577 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). For instance, in Bonifay, the appellate court ordered a new trial on consortium damages where the jury returned a zero verdict despite undisputed evidence that the injured spouse had neck surgery and had been hospitalized for a week. The court explained "The husband at a very minimum lost the services of the wife during her one week's stay in the hospital and that time immediately after her discharge while she was convalescing. Certainly this is undisputed evidence from which nominal damages should have been returned." 577 So.2d at 618.

Likewise in the present case, undisputed evidence was presented that as a result of his injuries and ensuing surgery, Ahmed was unable to walk for four weeks and unable to do things for himself for at least four weeks. During this period, Beverlyn tended to all his needs. The couple had enjoyed an active intimate relationship prior to the accident but had no conjugal relations for months after the accident while Ahmed recuperated.

Beverlyn established entitlement to at least some damages for loss of consortium. Under the circumstances, a new trial solely on the issue of damages for loss of consortium is warranted. See Bradshaw, 714 So.2d at 622.

The trial court's order denying a new trial is reversed in part and the cause remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages awardable to Beverlyn for her loss of consortium. The order denying the appellants' motion for a new trial is otherwise affirmed.


It's not unreasonable to claim an amount equal to half of hers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. You might attach monetary value to some of your mutual losses, by pricing replacement services,
which might be appropriate (say) for some housekeeping inconveniences resulting from the injury, which might be priced by figuring the cost of a maid-service for 50% of the housework -- but I expect that everyone would such consider such replacement-price estimates, for certain other losses, to be grossly crude and insulting and inappropriate

If you want a replacement-price estimate for the more delicate matters, you might try an approach like this: Our opportunities, to express and enjoy mutual affection in our relationship, has been seriously affected by this injury. We continue to need pleasant interludes together, so we plan to resume a practice resembling regular dating, where we engage in mutually-enjoyable activities that do not unnecessarily tax my wife's current physical condition. After discussion, we have decided (say) that a weekly concert or play with dinner would provide us a suitable opportunity to enjoy ourselves and each others company: assuming (say) 50 weekly dates a year, for five years, at a cost of $250 a date, including gas and parking, we estimate the cost of this at $62500 (or whatever)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
9. What does your lawyer suggest?
Be prepared. When the defendant does discovery, they'll ask you in interrogatories what you're asking for in consortium damages. And if they don't ask in the interrogs, they'll ask you straight up when they take your deposition. So have an answer ready.

Best wishes to you both, and good luck with the suit. As for the mattress, have you thought about that memory foam mattress? I can't think of the name of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 26th 2017, 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC