Corbridge v. M. Morrin & Son, Inc.

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ELLETT; CROCKETT
• Citation: Corbridge v. M. Morrin & Son, Inc., 432 P.2d 41, 19 Utah 2d 409 (Utah 1967)
• Decision Date: 22 September 1967
• Docket Number: No. 10853,10853
• Parties: d 409 Dale W. CORBRIDGE and Dorlene Corbridge, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. M. MORRIN AND SON, INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 41

432 P.2d 41

19 Utah 2d 409

Dale W. CORBRIDGE and Dorlene Corbridge, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. M. MORRIN AND SON, INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 10853.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 22, 1967.

Froerer, Horowitz, Parker, Richards, Thornley & Critchlow, Richard Richards, Ogden, for appellants.

Hanson & Baldwin, H. Wayne Wadsworth, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

ELLETT, Justice:

Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment rendered at the close of a pretrial conference. Dorlene Corbridge sued for injuries received when she fell into an unlighted excavation in a highway, and her husband, Dale, sued for lost wages he claims to have sustained when he ceased his employment to provide for his children while his wife was in the hospital and for sums of money paid to baby sitters during his wife's convalescence.

We believe the motion was properly granted as to the husband because of the language of Section 30--2--4, U.C.A.1953, which is as follows:

A wife may receive the wages for her personal labor, maintain an action therefor in her own name and hold the same in her own right, and may prosecute and defend all actions for the preservation and protection of her rights and property as if unmarried. There shall be no right of recovery by the husband on account of personal injury or wrong to his wife, or for expenses connected therewith, but the wife may recover against a third person for such injury or wrong as if unmarried, and such recovery shall include expenses of medical treatment and other expenses paid or assumed by the husband.

The wife, if anybody, should recover the expenses incurred in connection with her injuries. The reasonable value of the services which she was unable to perform as a result of her injuries and which she otherwise would have performed would be part of her recovery if any she is entitled to.

The record shows that the court had before it an affidavit of the injured plaintiff, who will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, together with her deposition taken by the defendant. It seems that the court believed the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and hence he granted the motion for summary judgment. If there were any admissions made at the pretrial hearing other than those contained in the affidavit and deposition, they are not before this court. The defendant filed no affidavits, and so the summary judgment must be granted, if at all, in the light of the undisputed statements contained in plaintiff's affidavit and deposition.

The facts as revealed in the two documents mentioned are as follows:

Plaintiff, a thirty-eight-year-old mother of four children, took those four children and three neighbor kiddies to Lagoon, a local amusement resort some eighteen miles distant from her city of Ogden. On the way out it was daytime, and she passed by a place in the highway where some sort of construction required her to detour to one side of the roadway. She returned about ten thirty p.m., and when she was some distance from the construction area, her motor ceased to function. Because she was going downgrade, she was able to coast past the nearest detour sign, where she parked on the highway to the side of the detour road. She was in a quandary as to what to do. The night way very dark, and she was several miles from home. She had seven children in her automobile with her. A lady motorist stopped and offered to take plaintiff to a phone where she could call for aid. Traffic was heavy, and the detour road was only wide enough to accommodate one lane of traffic in each direction. Plaintiff said she would go back and advise the children and warn them to stay in the car while she went to phone. The lady motorist being aware that she was blocking traffic said she would pull around a ways because she was afraid of being hit if she stayed where she was.

After plaintiff had talked to the kiddies, she looked ahead and could see the tail lights on the car of the lady motorist who was waiting for her. She walked directly toward those...