HEIDT VS. HEIDT (PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court declined to recognize a common-law cause of action for damage to (loss of) the parent-child relationship. Reaffirming General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 368, 498 P.2d 366, 371 (1972) - which recognized a spouse's loss-of-consortium claim but declined to recognize children's claims for loss of parental consortium, stating the court was "satisfied to await legislative action" - the court remained unpersuaded to create the action judicially, particularly given the Legislature's continuing silence some twenty years after Bush. Although appellants cited authority from twelve jurisdictions reflecting a trend toward recognition, the court declined the invitation to create the cause of action. Appellants' equal protection argument was not considered because it was raised for the first time on appeal. Peot v. Peot, 92 Nev. 388, 551 P.2d 242 (1976). The NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal of the fourth cause of action, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), was affirmed.

In plain language

Two-year-old Shayne Heidt was bitten on the face by a dog while playing at the dog owners' home. Shayne's parents sued the owners. Among their claims was one seeking damages for harm to the parent-child relationship, meaning the parents' own loss arising from their child's injury. The trial court dismissed that particular claim, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Nevada had never recognized a cause of action for damage to the parent-child relationship. Although the parents argued a "modern trend" in other states and cited cases from twelve states allowing a parent to recover for an injured child, the court declined to create such a claim. The court relied on its earlier decision in General Electric Co. v. Bush, in which it recognized a spouse's claim for loss of consortium but declined to recognize children's claims for loss of a parent's companionship, choosing instead to await legislative action. The court noted that the Legislature had remained silent for some twenty years and said it remained unconvinced it should create the claim judicially. The parents' equal-protection argument was rejected because they had not raised it in the trial court. The dismissal was affirmed.