With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or 50 years. [183 Wis.2d 667, 515 N.W.2d 705, 710 (1994).] See also Aurora v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 31 F.3d 724, 726 (8th Cir.1994)(finding the mother’s loss of consortium claim arising our of nonfatal injury to adult child was properly dismissed because Nebraska would not allow such claim); Counts v. Hospitality Employees, Inc., 518 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1994) (finding that a parent could not recover for loss of consortium on account of dram shop injury to adult son); Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 231 Kan. 588, 647 P.2d 1263, 1267 (1982)(denying parents of an adult child a consortium claim where the State does not recognize loss of consortium claim for injuries caused by the negligence of another); Michigan Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass’n v. Neal, 194 N.C. 401, 139 S.E. 841, 842 (1927)(<HOLDING>); Cole v. Broomsticks, Inc., 107 Ohio App.3d

A: recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse
B: holding that parent of adult son who became deranged could not recover for loss of consortium because the damages were too remote
C: 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
D: recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium
B.