Talk:Loss of consortium

This page seems to need quite a lot of cleanup. Is there anyone out there currently engaged in doing this? As currently written, the page might create in a layman the impression that loss of consortium is an antique and sexist legal principle which has been curtailed or eliminated by statute in Australia and the U.S.A., and which has no applicability elsewhere. This is not true. Loss of consortium is a frequently seen head of damages in much of the common-law world. In all those countries whose law is familiar to me, men and women are equally able to make a claim for loss of consortium. I will check back on this talk page in a month or so to see if anyone has made changes, and if they haven't, I may take a crack at it myself. NikolaiSmith (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph may have left out a key modifier. Read this and you tell me: "Actions for loss of services correctly treat this [the loss of a woman's capacity to make usual contributions as wife and mother in a household] as economic injury, but as a loss to the husband on the archaic view of the husband as mast

I have substantially changed the first paragraph of the article because of its misinterpretation of Baker v Bolton. Read carefully, one will see that Mr. Baker sued for his loss of consortium arising out of injuries to his wife in a carriage accident, that he was permitted to recover those damages while she spent a month lingering from her injuries, but that once she died his cause of action ended. Therefore Baker v Bolton stands for the principles that loss of consortium damages are available in personal injury cases, but not wrongful death cases. Rod Sullivan (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)