Last amended July 1, 2017 · Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19.1 requires a person with a closely related family or employment claim arising from the same wrongful act — a wrongful death claim alongside a survival claim, a spouse's loss-of-consortium claim, or similar derivative claims — to join the primary claim whenever that person can be served, unless good cause excuses it.
A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action, except as provided in division (B) of this rule, if the person has an interest in or a claim arising out of the following situations:
1Personal injury or property damage to the person or property of the decedent which survives the decedent’s death and a claim for wrongful death to the same decedent if caused by the same wrongful act;
2Personal injury or property damage to a spouse and a claim of the other spouse for loss of consortium or expenses or property damage if caused by the same wrongful act;
3Personal injury or property damage to a minor and a claim of the parent or guardian of the minor for loss of consortium or expenses or property damage if caused by the same wrongful act;
4Personal injury or property damage to an employee or agent and a claim of the employer or principal for property damage if caused by the same wrongful act.
5Personal injury to a parent and a claim of an adult emancipated child of the parent for loss of parental consortium if caused by the same wrongful act.
If the person has not been so joined, the court, subject to division (B) of this rule, shall order that the person be made a party upon timely assertion of the defense of failure to join a party as provided in Civ.R. 12(B)(7). If the defense is not timely asserted, waiver is applicable as provided in Civ.R. 12(G) and (H). If the person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. In the event that such joinder causes the relief sought to exceed the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall certify the proceedings in the action to the court of common pleas.
If a party to the action or a person described in s division (A) shows good cause why that person should not be joined, the court shall proceed without requiring joinder.
A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in divisions (A)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this rule who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 23.
Amendment History
Effective Date: July 1, 1970
Amended: July 1, 1996; July 1, 2016; July 1, 2017
Staff Note (July 1, 1996 Amendment)
Rule 19.1(A) Persons to be joined
The amendment conforms the rule to a clarification of law in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gallimore v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 244, 617 N.E.2d 1052. There, the Court stated in both syllabi that “Consortium includes society, companionship, affection, comfort, guidance and counsel.” Since the word “consortium” is more inclusive than the word “services,” it is more appropriate to use the former term. The amendment should avoid confusion between the rule and the substantive law in this regard.
Staff Note (July 1, 2016 Amendment)
The rule is amended to make gender neutral language changes, including at division 19.1(A)(2) where "spouse " is substituted for "husband or wife" as a person to be joined in particular actions. The amendments are made accordance with the July 26, 2015 Administrative Action of the Ohio Supreme Court, 06/26/2015 Administrative Actions, 2015-Ohio-2568, which ordered that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure be construed and amended as gender neutral where appropriate to comply with the decision of U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ , 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015). The amendments also make non-substantive stylistic changes to the rule.
Staff Note (July 1, 2017 Amendment)
Civ.R. 19.1(A)(5). Claims of adult emancipated children for loss of parental consortium.
In Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 380, 2001-Ohio-44, the Supreme Court of 59 Ohio held that adult emancipated children may recover under Ohio law for the loss of parental 60 consortium caused by injuries to a parent. The 2017 amendments add those claims to the claims 61 enumerated under Civ.R. 19.1(A). The amendments also make other nonsubstantive changes.
Plain-English Summary
Division (A) lists five relationships that trigger compulsory joinder when they arise from the same wrongful act: a survival claim alongside a wrongful death claim for the same decedent; a spouse's loss-of-consortium or property-damage claim alongside the other spouse's personal injury or property-damage claim; a parent's or guardian's consortium or expense claim alongside a minor's personal injury or property-damage claim; an employer's or principal's property-damage claim alongside an employee's or agent's personal injury or property-damage claim; and, since a 2017 amendment, an adult emancipated child's loss-of-parental-consortium claim alongside a parent's personal injury claim. If the person holding one of these related claims is not joined, the court must order that person joined once a party timely raises the defense of failure to join, and, as with Rule 19, an unwilling plaintiff-side claimant may be made a defendant or an involuntary plaintiff, with certification to the court of common pleas if joinder pushes the case beyond the court's jurisdiction.
Division (B) excuses joinder if a party or the person described in division (A) shows good cause why joinder should not be required — recognizing that these are still separate claims, sometimes with different limitations periods, that may not always belong in the same action. Division (C) requires a pleading to name, if known, anyone with a qualifying claim who was not joined and explain why, and division (D) subjects the whole rule to Rule 23's class action provisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of claims does Rule 19.1 require to be joined together?
Five categories arising from the same wrongful act: a survival claim with a wrongful death claim, a spouse’s consortium claim with the other spouse’s injury claim, a parent’s consortium claim with a minor’s injury claim, an employer’s property-damage claim with an employee’s injury claim, and an adult emancipated child’s consortium claim with a parent’s injury claim.
Can compulsory joinder under Rule 19.1 ever be excused?
Yes. Rule 19.1(B) lets the court proceed without joinder if a party, or the person who would otherwise be joined, shows good cause why that person should not be required to join.
Is a person required to be joined under Rule 19.1 ever an indispensable party?
No. Unlike some persons covered by Rule 19, a person described in Rule 19.1 is never treated as indispensable; nonjoinder does not by itself require dismissing the case.
Source & verification. The rule text, Effective Date, Amended dates, and Staff Notes are reproduced verbatim from the
official Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure (Ohio R. Civ. P. 19.1). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Ohio (Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, § 5(B)). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:compulsory joinderwrongful death and survival claimsloss of consortiumderivative claims