Kentucky Law Leaves The Dark Ages: Changed To Allow Loss Of Spousal Companionship (a/k/a "Consortium")
A nonsensical interpretation of Kentucky law has been overturned by the Kentucky Supreme Court--bringing Kentucky law out of the dark ages and in-line with the prevailing law throughout the country. Spouses who have their husband or wife taken from them prematurely as a result of the carelessness of someone else can now be compensated for their loss. 
Prior to this ruling, Kentucky was one of only a few states that did not allow a surviving spouse to sue for loss of companionship (called "consortium" in legal parlance) in wrongful death cases. The sad irony was that if the injured person survived the accident, their spouse was entitled to be compensated, but if the wrongdoer killed the injury victim, their spouse was denied compensation for the loss of their husband or wife.
In addition to exposing some flight safety issues, the Flight 5191 Comair crash in Lexington Kentucky on August 27, 2006, which took 49 lives needlessly, also brought this nonsensical defect in Kentucky law into the spotlight.
Parents can sue for loss of companionship when the victim is their child. Children can seek damages when the victim is their parent. And a spouse could claim loss of companionship when their husband or wife was injured but survived. But Kentucky courts had interpreted KRS 411.145, Kentucky's loss of consortium statute to mean that the spouse had no claim if their partner died.
However, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Mary Noble, the Court found that this interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the statute and could not have been what the legislature intended when enacted the law. In so doing, the Court ruled that the husband of Billie Carol Shreve, who was killed as a result of alleged medical malpractice in Ohio County, Kentucky, can seek compensation for her loss of companionship after his death, as can the spouse of any person who was killed by unlawful behavior in Kentucky (to the extent that the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations).
The Court said:
It is apparent that the kinds of damage elements enumerated in [Kentucky's loss of consortium statute, KRS 411.145] are those that describe the personal relationship, mental and physical, between spouses. It is equally apparent that the pain and deprivation coming from loss of such interactions does not magically disappear the day a spouse dies. It defies common sense to put a value on such losses while a spouse is lying incapacitated, but to say the loss is worthless after death. While grief and loss are borne in differnt ways by different people, it is nonetheless a common part of the human condition [-- one] that a jury can properly evaluate based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Estate of Bille Carol Shreve v. Ohio County Hospital Corp., 2008-SC-000211-DG.
Here's a link to the entire opinion: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2008-SC-000211-DG.pdf .
Commentary by Shawn Cantley, a Kentucky attorney who represents families of injury victims in wrongful death cases:
"Prior to a 1970 ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court, a husband had a claim for loss of his wife's companionship, but a wife did not have a claim for loss of her husband. All unfair laws eventually are undone, sometimes it just takes a while for the forces of change to prevail over the status quo. Anyone who cares at all about fairness and justice in the world is applauding today's decision by the Court."
