The Online Asbestos, Asbestos Cancer, & Mesothelioma Authority
Loss of Consortuium
In times past, the spouse of king, queen or other monarch who did not share political power in context of the marriage was known as a consort. A present case in point is Elizabeth II of Great Britain; although she is the Queen and therefore ceremonial head of state, her husband, Prince Philip, is not considered the King, and has no such functions or rights. Likewise, was Prince Charles ever to become King, his wife Camilla Bowles would not be Queen, and would have no ceremonial function. The main purpose of a consort was (and is) to provide an heir to the throne, office, etc.
Today, loss of consortium is a legal term meaning that one of the spouses in the marriage is no longer physically or psychologically capable of contributing to the household in economic terms, in the performance of maintenance duties, and/or of having "marital relations," i.e. sexual intercourse. This can be a temporary or a permanent condition, due to a physical injury, an illness, or even psychological stress.
If a plaintiff is to successfully sue and win damages on the grounds of loss of consortium, s/he must prove that his/her spouse's inability to engage in sexual activity or otherwise contribute to the well-being of the household is in some way attributable to the defendant's actions or negligence. Such a suit may be brought by the affected party (the principal), the principal's spouse, or both.
As one might imagine, putting a monetary value on a couple's sex life is a very subjective area and highly speculative. Nonetheless, if the plaintiff(s) can demonstrate that the deprivation of sexual relations has caused sufficient hardship (as indeed it may - particularly in nuclear family units) the jury or judge may be inclined to award a very substantial settlement.
Common law rules of consortium have been abolished in many parts of the U.K. and Australia, but the action is still available in many U.S. states and Canadian provinces.