Well this could get interesting:

[Woof Man Jack]

Prove your loss of sex, Mrs. Kennedy.

If former University of Cincinnati basketball coach Andy Kennedy and his wife contend his December assault arrest ruined their personal life, they're going to have to prove it with medical documents.

 

[biguglyjoe]

******

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Kennedy and his wife may be court ordered to go thru Dr. administered exams, and will be subject to depositions and court testimony relative to this issue.

Depends on how far they want to take it.</p>

 

[ckDOG]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">If she were to win this case, it just further demonstrates how big of a joke our legal system is. Take into consideration a couple of very simple facts here - Kennedy was arrested December 18 - the suit was filed December 22. Kennedy was out of town coaching the Louisville game December 18th. So, that leaves three possible "sexless" days (19th - 21st) for the Kennedy family before she files on the 22nd. How in the hell could anyone incur significant emotional pain and suffering from a lack of sex over 3 days - ESPECIALLY when your husband is a basketball coach that travels constantly? There is no way in hell you deserve money for not getting to screw for 3 days and there is no way in hell you could predict that Andy is going to be an indefinite limp dick in such a short period of time.

Someone explain to me how this isn't a frivolous claim.

</p>

 

[Rebels7]

lawschoolku

 

[RebelBruiser]

I'm pretty sure that it's been covered on here multiple times, but loss of consortium does not refer to sex alone. This is the definition I found:

Loss of consortium is a term used in the law of torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor.

Obviously, it can include sex, but it's not limited to that alone. You could file loss of consortium on the basis that your spouse simply treated you differently at home following an incident.

Now, I think the problem they are going to run into, as mentioned in the article, is that Ohio law apparently says that loss of consortium claims can only be filed if the loss occurs due to an injury that the spouse incurred. So, basically, for the claim to be valid, AK would've had to have sustained an injury that contributed to the loss of consortium. They are obviously going to get it thrown out based on the lack of injury to AK. It won't go any further than that.

 

[DowntownDawg]

Kink-ku?

 

[Rebels7]

Touche.

 

[biguglyjoe]

InternationalIncidentku

 

[lawdawg02]

AK's lawyer is a moron for filing these charges in the first place. he apparently didn't know the law in ohio regarding loss of consortium.

</p>

"Ohio law is clear. A loss of consortium claim … can be based only on some bodily injury to the spouse primarily injured," today's filings noted.

= cabbie's lawyer's motion to dismiss. AK never claims any bodily injury. emotional distress isn't sufficient to support the claim in ohio. here's a quick excerpt i found:

</p>

In Morgan, the jury awarded the wife-plaintiff $ 5,000 on her loss of consortium claim. On appeal, defendants argued that "a loss of consortium claim is dependant upon bodily injury to the <a name="4912-296"><span class="pmtermS3" id="S3">[**296]</span></a> spouse, and that bodily injury does not include emotional distress." <sup title="Click here to review the text of the footnote">24 From this, defendants concluded that since the <a name="3355-512"><span class="pmtermS1" id="S1">[*512]</span></a> husband suffered only emotional distress, the wife was not entitled to damages for loss of consortium...The key question is whether the term 'bodily injury' includes non-physical harms such as emotional distress. Ohio courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that it does not.

</p>

 

[Shmuley]

I have completely and thoroughly examined Kimber Kennedy and it is my opinion that she is quite capable of being sexually satisfied. Thanks, Andy.

 

[ckDOG]

But, are you suggesting they will focus on something else other than sex though?

Probably a irrelevant argument like Bruiser said. No physical injury = no lack of consortium in Ohio. Sounds like the lawyer did a poor job in research on this one. Hopefully, he wasn't OM educated.</p>

 

[cowbell9]

3timesinonehourku</p>