resultant injury to the marriage by reason of the deprivation of society, affection and conjugal fellowship is no less because it did not result from physical harm to one spouse.”); Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 60, 183 F.2d 811, 814 (1950), overruled on other grounds by Smither & Co. v. Coles, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 242 F.2d 220 (1957) (“Consortium, although it embraces within its ambit of meaning the wife’s material services, also includes love, affection, companionship, sexual relations, etc., all welded into a conceptualistic unity.”). We have acknowledged that the negligent actor owes an “independent duty” to a spouse with a right to the marital consortium. Hitaffer, 87 U.S.App.D.C. at 66, 183 F.2d at 820; see also Massengale v. Pitts, 737 A.2d 1029, 1033 (D.C.1999) (<HOLDING>). Viewed against the broad spectrum of cases
recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium can proceed even where the injured spouse was contributorily negligent recognizing loss of consortium claims holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium