Abbitt v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Citation: 79 S.W. 496,104 Mo. App. 534
• Parties: ABBITT v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Decision Date: 16 February 1904
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

79 S.W. 496

104 Mo. App. 534

ABBITT v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 16, 1904.

INJURIES TO WIFE—ACTION BY HUSBAND— DAMAGES—PHYSICIAN'S SERVICES—REASONABLE VALUE—EVIDENCE—PLEADING—OBJECTION AFTER VERDICT—HARMLESS ERROR.

1. Where, in an action for damages to plaintiff by reason of injuries sustained by his wife through defendant's negligence, the evidence was conclusive that plaintiff's items of loss and expenditure, other than the cost of any medicines which the jury might have believed from the evidence plaintiff had purchased for his wife's use, exceeded the amount of the verdict, error, if any, in permitting a recovery for medicines, was harmless.

2. Where it was proved that a physician rendered a bill for $250 to plaintiff for treating plaintiff's wife for injuries sustained by her through defendant's negligence, and plaintiff settled the bill by giving the physician an indosed note for such amount, an instruction authorizing plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of such medical services was not objectionable on the ground that there was no proof that the physician's bill was reasonable.

3. Where evidence tending to show that plaintiff lost time in being compelled to attend his wife after she was injured through defendant's negligence, and the value of the time so lost, was admitted without objection, defendant could not object, after verdict, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for such loss of time on the ground that special damages therefor had not been pleaded.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Charles County; E. M. Hughes, Judge.

Action by Frank Abbitt against the St. Louis Transit Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Boyle, Priest & Lehman, T. C. Bruere, and Geo. W. Easley, for appellant. Richard Ralph, T. T. & C. H. Fauntleroy, and F. F. McDearmon, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This plaintiff obtained a judgment for $500 against the defendant for personal injuries sustained by her in being thrown from the running board of a car by the negligent starting of the car as she was in the act of alighting. The only point made against the validity of the judgment is that the jury were erroneously instructed as to the measure of damages. The instruction of which complaint is made is this one: "The court instructs the jury that if, under the evidence and the other instructions, you decide to find for the plaintiff, you should then assess his damages at such sum as you find from the evidence to be a reasonable compensation to him for any loss of services and of the society (that is to say, of the companionship) of his said wife, and for the reasonable value of his time expended by him in necessary personal care and attention to her, if any, which you may find from the evidence have been caused to plaintiff as direct results of said injury to plaintiff's wife, as well as for such expenses as you may find from the evidence plaintiff has necessarily incurred in taking care of his wife (from the time she was disabled to the present time) on account of the injuries she directly sustained, if any, in consequence of the injury complained of, including therein compensation to plaintiff for such necessary expenses on account of the reasonable value of medical services to and medicines for her as you may find from the evidence plaintiff may have paid or become liable for in consequence of said injury to his said wife." The first ground on which that direction is attacked is that there was no evidence plaintiff paid for any medicines for his wife while she was under treatment for her injuries, and it was therefore erroneous to allow the jury to take account of the cost of medicines in estimating the damages. So far as we have gathered in an attentive perusal of the testimony, no witness testified in opposition to the testimony for the plaintiff as to the extent of the loss he sustained by his wife's injuries, and the only controversy that can be raised as to the amount of his damages is that different...