Hitaffer v. Argonne Co.

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case

|Litigants=Hitaffer v. Argonne Co.

|Court=United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

|CourtSeal=

|ArgueDate=January 9,

|ArgueYear=1950

|DecideDate=May 29,

|DecideYear=1950

|FullName=Hitaffer v. Argonne Co.

|Citations=183 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/183/811/266589/ 811]; 87 U.S. App. D.C. 57; 23 A.L.R. 2d 1366

|Prior=

|Subsequent=Certiorari denied October 16, 1950

|Holding=

|Judges=Bennett Champ Clark, Wilbur Kingsbury Miller, Charles Fahy

|Majority=Clark

|JoinMajority=Miller

|Concurrence=Fahy

|keywords= {{hlist | Loss of consortium }}

}}

Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 183 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1950),{{cite court |litigants=Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. |vol=183 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=811 |pinpoint= |court=D.C. Cir. |date=1950 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/183/811/266589/ |accessdate=2018-06-16 |quote=}} was a case decided by the D.C. Circuit that first recognized a wife's right to bring a cause of action for loss of consortium.Henderson, J.A., et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, p. 321

The plaintiff's husband had been injured at work, and had received compensation, however his injuries had left the married couple unable to enjoy sexual relations. The wife filed for additional damages on grounds of loss of consortium, but the defendant argued that a wife could not suffer loss of consortium.