Comstock v. Conn. Ry. & Lighting Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1904
• Citation: 77 Conn. 65,58 A. 465
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COMSTOCK v. CONNECTICUT RY. & LIGHTING CO. COMSTOCK et ux. v. SAME.

58 A. 465

77 Conn. 65

COMSTOCK

v. CONNECTICUT RY. & LIGHTING CO.

COMSTOCK et ux.

v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 1, 1904.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Two actions, one by Stephen Comstock, the other by him and his wife, against the Connecticut Railway & Lighting Company, for injury to the wife while a passenger on defendant's railway. Both were defaulted and heard in damages together. From the judgments for $300 in the first action and $500 in the second action, plaintiffs appeal. First judgment reversed; second judgment affirmed.

John H. Light, for appellants.

William T. Hincks, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. In one of these actions a husband sues for his own loss from injuries suffered by the wife; in the other both sue for her loss. In each action the complaint states that when injured she was keeping a fashionable city boarding house; that her injuries prevented her from continuing to keep it; and that she has since not been able to do any work whatever, and has been at great expense for medical treatment. In the action by the husband he alleges that when she was injured, and for a long period before, she had supported him, but that he has since been deprived of such support and of her services, and will be for a long period to come. The finding shows these facts: The husband was out of health, and unable to work, except in assisting in the conduct of the affairs of the family. The wife kept a boarding house, as alleged. During the summer months she had from 10 to 16 boarders; during the rest of the year from 2 to 5. It did not appear that this business was conducted upon her personal credit, or for the benefit of her separate estate. Her injuries compelled her to refuse to receive any boarders for six months, including the summer following the accident, and since then she has not taken as many boarders as before. The expense of necessary medical attendance was $150. It was agreed that damages for the loss of her earnings and services should be assessed in only one action. The judgment for $300 in favor of the husband was for the $150 above mentioned and for the loss of his wife's services and society. The other judgment for $500 was for her injuries, pain, and suffering.

On the trial Mr. Comstock was asked how he had lived during the past year without the services of his wife and support from her. This question was properly excluded. An answer would not have tended to show that she had previously supported him; nor, if she had, was it of any consequence in what manner he had since been able to subsist without her aid. The plaintiffs, when produced as witnesses in their own behalf, were severally asked whether the keeping of boarders had been profitable during the year previous to the injury; and it was proposed to follow this up by asking each to estimate the amount of such profits, and also the profits for the next succeeding year. No claim was made that accounts had been kept showing the items of cost and receipts, or that such items could be proved. The question was excluded on the ground that such evidence was remote, speculative, and immaterial. The complaint stated that she was the keeper of a fashionable boarding house, and had long furnished her husband with support. This, after a default, fairly implied that his support came from her keeping the boarding house, and that her services in that business were valuable to him. How valuable they were, and how great had been his loss, could best be ascertained by showing what the profits from it were before the injury and what they had been since. A loss of profits cannot be shown in proof of damage from a breach of contract unless damage from that source should reasonably have been contemplated by the defendant, at the date of the contract,...