Landmark ruling restricts parents’ wrongful-death damages
(Continued - Page 2)

The Philippides Court first addressed whether the wrongful-death statute permitted the parent of an adult child to recover for loss of consortium without having been financially dependent on the child. The Court held that the statute's “dependent for support" language meant what it traditionally had meant, which is financial dependence. The Court considered the statute's legislative history and concluded that a recent amendment did not allow non-financially dependent parents to sue for the death of their adult children, as opposed to their minor children.

The Philippides Court next considered plaintiffs' request that it create a common-law right of action for loss of consortium in such cases. Plaintiffs urged a change in the rule because of outdated notions of the parent-child relationship and because such a financial-dependence requirement would permit recovery by a parent of a 17-year-old to recover, but not by a parent of an 18-year-old. The Court disagreed, concluding that the legislature created a comprehensive set of statutes governing who may recover for wrongful death and survival. Thus any change had to come from the legislature, not the courts.

The Philippides Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that RCW 4.24.010's dependency requirement violated federal and state constitutional protections. The Court held that essentially the same arguments were rejected in Masunaga v. Gapasin, 57 Wn. App. 624 (1990), and legitimate reasons supported their conclusion.

The dissent, authored by Justice Chambers, asserted that RCW 4.24.010 allowed the cause of action because the definition of "support" applied to adult and minor children.