Bolger v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Citation | 205 Mass. 420,91 N.E. 389 |
| Parties | BOLGER v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 23 March 1910 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A. S. Apsey, D. H. Coakley, and W. M. Hurd, for plaintiff.
Choate Hall & Stewart, for defendant.
In Nolin v. Pearson, 191 Mass. 283, 77 N.E. 890, 4 L. R. A. (N S.) 643, 114 Am. St. Rep. 605, it was held in accordance with the great weight of authority in this country that the right of the wife to maintain an action to recover damages caused by the loss of her husband's consortium through the wrongful act of a third party stood on an equal footing with the right of the husband to maintain an action for the loss of the wife's consortium, and that the common law which limited the right to maintain such an action to the husband had been abrogated as the result of various statutes which had been enacted from time to time in regard to the rights of married women. In that case the wife was allowed to maintain an action for loss of her husband's consortium arising out of the alienation of his affection by the defendant and the procuring and enticing of him to leave her and absent himself from her house. From the nature of the action no recovery could have been had by the husband, and unless an action could be maintained by the wife the defendant would have escaped all liability for the wrong done.
The present action goes beyond the case of Nolin v. Pearson supra, and presents a different question. The plaintiff seeks to recover for the loss of his wife's consortium and for expenses incurred by him as the result of injuries received by her while a passenger in a car belonging to the defendant company from which she subsequently died. The plaintiff also seeks to recover in another action as administrator of his wife's estate for the injury and conscious suffering sustained by her. The two actions were tried together. In the first there was a verdict for the plaintiff of $2,500, and in the second of $3,000. Subsequently motions for new trials were filed in both cases. The court refused to disturb the verdict in the case by the administrator, but suggested, in view of the decision in Feneff v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R., 203 Mass. 278, 89 N.E. 436, which had been reported since the trial, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for loss of consortium and that the verdict should be reduced to $750, which it was agreed was the expense to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deshotel v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
...recovery to the husband as well as to the wife. Lockwood v. Wilson H. Lee Co., 144 Conn. 155, 128 A.2d 330, 331; Bolger v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 205 Mass. 420, 91 N.E. 389; Blair v. Seitner Dry Goods Co., 184 Mich. 304, 151 N.W. 724, 726-727, L.R.A. 1915D, 524; Helmstetler v. Duke Power ......
-
Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...cases that person remains in all events subject to a conventional action by the spouse physically injured. See Bolger v. Boston Elev. Ry., 205 Mass. 420, 91 N.E. 389 (1910). But to make a consortium claim hang on this difference seems to overplay the motive of punishment and hardly explains......
-
Lombardo v. D. F. Frangioso & Co.
...or loss of marital and other services growing out of a defendant's negligent injury to the other spouse. See Bolger v. Boston Elev. Ry., 205 Mass. 420, 421, 91 N.E. 389; Whitcomb v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R., 215 Mass. 440, 442, 102 N.E. 663; Gearing v. Berkson, 223 Mass. 257, 260--261, 111 ......
-
Still by Erlandson v. Baptist Hosp., Inc.
...179 S.W. 127 (1915), although there were for a time decisions in other states to the contrary. See, e.g., Bolger v. Boston Elevated R.R. Co., 205 Mass. 420, 91 N.E. 389 (1910). The Tennessee Supreme Court in Carter stated that the Act encompassed only a married women's property rights in ma......