This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. English to French
  3. Law (general)

loss of consortium

16:13 May 23, 2018
This question was closed without grading. Reason: Other

English to French translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general) / WAIVER AND RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY, ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
English term or phrase: loss of consortium
URGENT

I agree to defend and indemnify The XXXXXXXXX Store, its owners, employees, officers and agents against any and all financial

liability or claims, actions, causes of actions of other liability, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, for injury, illness,

death, losses or damages that other parties may suffer, including but not limited to bodily injury, emotional distress,

aggravation of pre-existinginjury or illness, loss of consortium, dismemberment or death, wrongful death, property or other loss

or damage of any type,
Irène Guinez
Spain
Local time: 10:05


Summary of answers provided
5 -1perte de cohabitation
Daryo
4 -2perte de consortium / perte de cohéritage / perte par les cohéritiers
Marcombes (X)
Summary of reference entries provided
There ain't nuffink like a good reference
AllegroTrans

Discussion entries: 9





  

Answers


2 days 19 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -2
perte de consortium / perte de cohéritage / perte par les cohéritiers


Explanation:
301 ...... perte de consortium de l'enfant (n.f.) (néol.) 120 perte de consortium filial (n.f.) (néol.) 120 perte de consortium matrimonial (n.f.) (néol.).

Marcombes (X)
France
Local time: 10:05
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 102

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Germaine: D'accord avec perte de consortium - mais certes PAS avec le reste: l'héritage n'a rien à voir là!
1 day 3 hrs
disagree  Daryo: if you propose a list, it should be a list of synonyms not two terms totally out of context ("cohéritage" / "cohéritiers"?? = who died??) and a third different one that is a simplistic calque.
4 days
disagree  AllegroTrans: 3 disparate alternatives
10 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

19 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): -1
perte de cohabitation


Explanation:
you can be insured for the "loss of consortium" - the capacity to maintain normal physical sexual relations

it is a right "to keep your capacity for ..." - (but certainly not to exercise this capacity randomly!), same as is the right to keep all your limbs attached to your body and functioning, not lose vision or hearing etc ... all insurable losses!

whoever coined the term "cohabitation" as used in politics in France probably never read the small prints of any life-insurance policy ...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2018-05-24 11:47:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

« droit...aux relations sexuelles normales »? not quite, more precisely it's about:

« droit à être capable de relations sexuelles normales » = capable de "cohabitation"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 12 hrs (2018-05-26 04:21:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Nota Bene:

the place of "loss of consortium" in the whole list of insured losses:

liability or claims, actions, causes of actions of other liability, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, for

injury, illness, death, losses or damages that other parties may suffer, including but not limited to bodily injury, emotional distress, aggravation of pre-existing injury or illness, loss of consortium, dismemberment or death, wrongful death, property or other loss

except for "emotional distress" all other are bodily / physical damage.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 days (2018-05-30 20:13:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The precise "nuance of meaning" of a term depending on the surrounding text? Like what is the whole list and the whole text about? I was under the delusion that it's a thing called "context" ...

Daryo
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:05
Native speaker of: Native in SerbianSerbian, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 266

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Germaine: There's a difference between "loss of consortium" and "loss of companionship". // Please explain how "Loss of cohabitation" can be a body injury. Since when is a term defined by its place in a list? Please see discussion.
3 hrs
  -> In France it's often included in the list of physical damages that are covered by invalidity / life insurance - and the term used in France is definitely "cohabitation" for ths type of body injury.
disagree  GILLES MEUNIER: http://wikipedia.qwika.com/en2fr/Loss_of_consortium
1 day 18 hrs
  -> N.B. "Français > en.wikipedia.org (Traduit par ordinateur dans le Français)" - WOW! a real gold standard of quality translation to be relied upon!!! Even an MT could do better - (I mean a more advanced than yours) // Караван иде даље ...
neutral  Odile Raymond: "Droit à être capable" just does not make any sense./It makes no sense either way: le droit d'avoir le droit ? (it's like key keys...), and the ability (être capable) to carry out sexual intercourse is not a right, it is the quality/state of being potent.
10 days
  -> It does make perfect sense the same way as you "have the right to be capable to walk/see/hear .." and you can get an insurance for "loss of capacity to walk/see/hear.." makes no difference if all the walking you ever do is just to fridge!
neutral  AllegroTrans: See definition; I don't think co-habitation per se is involved
12 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Reference comments


9 days peer agreement (net): +1
Reference: There ain't nuffink like a good reference

Reference information:
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. Loss of consortium arising from personal injuries was recognized under the English common law. For example, in Baker v Bolton, (1808) 1 Camp 493, a man was permitted to recover for his loss of consortium while his wife languished after a carriage accident. However, once she died from her injuries, his right to recover for lost consortium ended. After the enactment of the Lord Campbell's Act (9 and 10 Vic. c. 93) the English common law continued to prohibit recovery for loss of consortium resulting from the death of a victim. The availability of loss of consortium differs drastically among common law jurisdictions and does not exist at all in several of them. Damages for loss of consortium are considered separately from, and are not to be confused with compensatory damages.

The action was originally paired in a Latin expression: "per quod servitium et consortium amisit", translated as "in consequence of which he lost her servitude and sex". The relationship between husband and wife has, historically, been considered worthy of legal protection. The interest being protected under consortium, is that which the head of the household (father or husband) had in the physical integrity of his wife, children, or servants. The undertone of this action is that the husband had an unreciprocated proprietary interest in his wife. The deprivations identified include the economic contributions of the injured spouse to the household, care and affection, and sex. The action originated in the 18th century and was once available to a father against a man who was courting his daughter outside of marriage, on the grounds that the father had lost the consortium of his daughter's household services because she was spending time with her beau.

Loss of consortium has been brought into the law as a cause of action by civil codes, for example, in Maine[1] or into the common law by action of justices. Other jurisdictions view loss of consortium as an element of damages, not as an independent cause of action; in which case the claim must be brought under another tort. As an example, in suits brought under the State of Washington's wrongful death statute, loss of consortium is an element of damages.[2] While some jurisdictions only recognize spousal consortium (usually considered as sex) others recognize parental consortium (love and affection) as well allowing children to recover for the death or disability of a parent and vice versa.

Since same-sex marriage became available in the United States, courts in that country have extended loss of consortium to these unions.[3]
In other jurisdictions

The common law rule of consortium has been amended or abolished by statute in many jurisdictions. Actions for loss of consortium have been abolished in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and New Zealand, by the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (UK) s 2, the Law Reform (Marital Consortium) Act 1984 (NSW) s 3, the Common law (Miscellaneous Actions) Act 1986 (Tas) s 3, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (WA) s 3, the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 218 and the Accident Compensation Act 1972 (NZ) s 5(2) respectively.

Where this action is available, however, damages may be claimed under three theories: incurred medical costs or those yet to be incurred by the plaintiff, the loss of the injured spouse's services, and loss of society (within certain parameters).

This action, in its common law form, has been labelled by Australian High Court Justice Murphy as an "archaic view" of interpersonal relationships due to the proprietary and misogynist undertones. In his judgment in Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563, he noted that "actions for loss of services correctly treat this [the loss of a woman's capacity to make usual contributions as wife and mother in a household] as economic injury, but as a loss to the husband on the archaic view of the husband as master or owner of his wife".

In an Australian case, Baker v. Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493, Lord Ellenborough made a much disputed, and unsupported, statement that an action for loss of consortium will not lie when the act, omission, or negligence in question results in the wife's death. Similarly, a claim for loss of consortium will not lie where the husband and wife's marital bond has been severed by divorce (Parker v Dzundza [1979] Qd R 55)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_consortium
AllegroTrans
United Kingdom
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 680

Peer comments on this reference comment (and responses from the reference poster)
agree  Daryo
4 days
  -> Thanks
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search