(dissenting).
The conclusion- of th.e majority opinion is reached .by application of the doctrine of .stare decisis. The. salutary effect of adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis is well recognized. But, when the reason for the original rule no longer exists;- then stare decisis should not operate to" continue an outmoded principle.
The legal status of a. married woman has changed to such an extent that, if a husband should have the right- to recover for the loss *175of consortium, then surely the wife should be entitled to the same right. But, in my opinion, there is no discernible reaspn to allow the right to either. Rather than extend this opinion, I refer to the separate dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Walter V. Schaefer, Illinois Supreme Court, in Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill.2d 406, 170 N.E.2d 881, 86 A.L.R.2d 1184. Therein the reasons why neither party should have a right of action are very ably stated.
PALMORE, J., joins in this dissent.