Thank you for explaining this. Torts isn’t my practice area, but when people harp on about this kind of thing that without knowing what it means.

It’s referred to that way because “loss of consortium” is the legal term for a separate claim for damages for a third party who otherwise isn’t involved in the suit. Her own inability to have sex would be factored in to her personal claim for damages relating to this colossal fuck up.

Her loss was directly addressed in the part directly before: “compensatory damages.” Legally speaking, only the spouse of the person suffering the injury gets compensation for loss of consortium. There is no legal term other than compensatory damages that refers to Ms. Malatesta’s loss of companionship from her…

Lawyer here. Wife’s lack of consortium is a thing too. If the husband was injured and unable to have sex, she could sue for that. Her inability to have sex is probably factored into her pain and suffering.