If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

The parent may or may not also have been negligent and unable to sue successfully, and it may or may not have happened in a contributory-negligence** state. **Or does that distinction only apply
to traffic accidents?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to micky <[email protected]>:

If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

Probably not. Loss of companionship or of consortium is generally only
to a spouse or a parent or perhaps the minor child of a parent.

As we have often noted, in the US you can sue anyone for anything but
I would expect it would be very hard to persuade a court that the
two brothers were close enough to have a claim.

If the parents were there, they'd be the obvious plaintiffs both for
wrongful death and loss of companionship since they lost a kid.

(I sure hope this is hypothetical.)
--
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 29 Aug 2024 23:58:11 -0700 (PDT), "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:

According to micky <[email protected]>:

If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

Probably not. Loss of companionship or of consortium is generally only
to a spouse or a parent or perhaps the minor child of a parent.

As we have often noted, in the US you can sue anyone for anything but
I would expect it would be very hard to persuade a court that the
two brothers were close enough to have a claim.

If the parents were there, they'd be the obvious plaintiffs both for
wrongful death and loss of companionship since they lost a kid.

(I sure hope this is hypothetical.)

Yes, it is. I appreciate your concern.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/30/2024 2:58 AM, John Levine wrote:

According to micky <[email protected]>:

If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

Probably not. Loss of companionship or of consortium is generally only
to a spouse or a parent or perhaps the minor child of a parent.

As we have often noted, in the US you can sue anyone for anything but
I would expect it would be very hard to persuade a court that the
two brothers were close enough to have a claim.

If the parents were there, they'd be the obvious plaintiffs both for
wrongful death and loss of companionship since they lost a kid.

(I sure hope this is hypothetical.)

I agree with this. In my view, the only way a brother can maybe sue for damages in the death of his brother is if the surviving brother had some
kind of expectation of income or payments from the deceased brother, had
he lived. For example, if the brothers had some kind of professional partnership - perhaps they were a successful musical duo --and earned
income together as a pair, the death of one of them could effectively
end the partnership and result in the loss of future income.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

The parent may or may not also have been negligent and unable to sue successfully, and it may or may not have happened in a contributory-negligence** state. **Or does that distinction only apply
to traffic accidents?

What's the point of all your long series of contrived hypotheticals?
I'm not saying there isn't a point, I just wonder what it is. If it's
your way of learning about the law, I'd be the last one to gainsay
it. But I don't think it's the best way to learn. (In particular, US
Federal courts never decide hypotheticals; they decide "cases" or "controversies", which means real situations with a live plaintiff
and live defendant. Has anyone ever got a real knowledge of law
through nothing but dreaming up hypotheticals and asking someone
about them? I doubt it.

As it is., your series reminds me on an old George Carlin (I think)
routine about teenage boys in Catholic catechism class, where one of
them raises a series of increasingly outlandish hypotheticals.
"Father, what if I'm on a ship the day before Easter, and there's no
priest on board, so I miss my Easter duty [i.e., taking the
Eucharist]? But then we cross the International Date Line. ..."

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:25:30 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

The parent may or may not also have been negligent and unable to sue
successfully, and it may or may not have happened in a
contributory-negligence** state. **Or does that distinction only apply
to traffic accidents?

What's the point of all your long series of contrived hypotheticals?

Each one has a different point. I don't see them as a series.

I'm trying to keep some life in the ng. If there were better quality
posts being made and I was somehow interfering with them, I might adjust
my standards of what is worth my posting, but there isn't.

I'm not saying there isn't a point, I just wonder what it is. If it's
your way of learning about the law, I'd be the last one to gainsay
it. But I don't think it's the best way to learn. (In particular, US
Federal courts never decide hypotheticals;

I know. But we never have absolutely all of the facts here of any
real case we might want to discuss, so it might as well be a
hypothetical. And there is no doubt that some people who have been
murdered have brothers. So I wouldn't call this one hypothetical.

they decide "cases" or
"controversies", which means real situations with a live plaintiff
and live defendant. Has anyone ever got a real knowledge of law
through nothing but dreaming up hypotheticals and asking someone
about them? I doubt it.

These threads are not expected to convey to me or anyone a full
knowledge of law, only to deal with specific questions.

As it is., your series reminds me on an old George Carlin (I think)
routine about teenage boys in Catholic catechism class, where one of
them raises a series of increasingly outlandish hypotheticals.
"Father, what if I'm on a ship the day before Easter, and there's no
priest on board, so I miss my Easter duty [i.e., taking the
Eucharist]? But then we cross the International Date Line. ..."

I wish I had been able to ask George about that one.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/31/2024 9:25 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

If a parent takes kids to visit someone and one drowns in their lake
partly due to the homeowner's negligence, can one brother sue for the
loss of the companionship etc. of his brother?

The parent may or may not also have been negligent and unable to sue
successfully, and it may or may not have happened in a
contributory-negligence** state. **Or does that distinction only apply
to traffic accidents?

What's the point of all your long series of contrived hypotheticals?
I'm not saying there isn't a point, I just wonder what it is. If it's
your way of learning about the law, I'd be the last one to gainsay
it. But I don't think it's the best way to learn. (In particular, US
Federal courts never decide hypotheticals; they decide "cases" or "controversies", which means real situations with a live plaintiff
and live defendant. Has anyone ever got a real knowledge of law
through nothing but dreaming up hypotheticals and asking someone
about them? I doubt it.

As it is., your series reminds me on an old George Carlin (I think)
routine about teenage boys in Catholic catechism class, where one of
them raises a series of increasingly outlandish hypotheticals.
"Father, what if I'm on a ship the day before Easter, and there's no
priest on board, so I miss my Easter duty [i.e., taking the
Eucharist]? But then we cross the International Date Line. ..."

Wow! I haven't thought of that old George Carlin routine in maybe 50
years. If I'm remembering right, the bit was called "Heavy Mysteries"
and I think the priest was Father Russell. I probably played that album
100 times. The next line muttered by Carlin playing Father Russell was something like "Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account, sit down Woozie."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)