Since the 1980s, New Jersey courts have held that legal marriage is a prerequisite to bringing a per quod claim. See Childers v. Shannon, 183 N.J. Super. 591 (Law Div. 1982); Leonardis v. Morton Chemical, Div. of Morton Norwich Products, 184 N.J. Super. 10, 11 (App. Div. 1982); Lemma v. Racing, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1212 (App. Div. 2011). However, due to the dated policy considerations underlying these decisions, there is a reasonable basis to argue that unmarried cohabitants, and other individuals with intimate familial relationships, should have standing to assert a per quod claim. 

One of the early cases to evaluate the requirements of a per quod claim was Childers v. Shannon. In Childers v. Shannon, the plaintiff sought to recover for injuries to her fiancé arising out of an auto accident that occurred two months before the wedding. Childers, supra, 183 N.J. Super. at 592. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the per quod claim because the plaintiffs were not married at the time of the accident. Id. 

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]