Desjourdy v. Mesrobian, 6991.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6991.,6991. |
| Citation | 158 A. 719 |
| Parties | DESJOURDY v. MESROBIAN. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.
Action by Henry J. Desjourdy against Minas Mesrobian. On certification from the superior court.
Certified question answered, and case remitted for further proceedings.
Greenough, Lyman & Cross and Harvey S. Reynolds, all of Providence, for plaintiff.
Boss & McMahon, Henry M. Boss, Jr., and Francis W. Conlan, all of Providence, for defendant.
This action is before us on certification from the superior court under provisions of section 5, c. 348, General Laws 1923. The question of law certified is as follows: Is an action of trespass on the case brought by a husband for a loss of services of his wife and for expenses incurred in caring for her, occasioned by personal injuries inflicted on her by the alleged negligent acts of the defendant, an action for injuries to the person within the meaning of section 1, c. 334, General Laws 1923?
The determination of the question depends on the interpretation of that part of said section 1 which is as follows: "Actions for injuries to the person shall be commenced and sued within two years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after."
In Larisa v. Tiffany, 42 R. I. 148, 105 A. 739, it was held that a husband could recover from a town for loss of services and expenses occasioned by an injury suffered by his wife in a highway under the statute which permits an action for bodily injury or damage to property by reason of a defect or want of repair in a highway. The plaintiff in the present case reasons that, the services of his wife having been determined to be a property right, the period of limitation applicable to rights of property applies rather than the period of limitation contained in said section 1. This conclusion is too broad, as the Legislature may provide different periods of limitations of actions for injury to different classes of property. The husband's right of action for the loss of services and expense in caring for his wife is concomitant with and dependent upon an actionable injury to her. To recover he must prove in the first instance all that his wife would have to prove in order to recover. If the plaintiff's contention is sustained, the anomalous situation arises that the main action is barred and the dependent action may be prosecuted notwithstanding. It is improbable that the Legislature intended such an illogical result.
In construing a statute it is permissible to consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schnebly v. Baker
...injuries to child); Black v. Eastern Pennsylvania Ry., 257 Pa. 273, 101 A. 644 (husband's action for injuries to wife); Desjourdy v. Mesrobian, 52 R.I. 146, 158 A. 719 (same); Blackwell v. Memphis Street Ry., 124 Tenn. 516, 137 S.W. 486 (mother's action for injuries to daughter); Barker v. ......
-
Maidman v. Stagg
...239 Or. 429, 397 P.2d 529; McKee v. Neilson, 444 P.2d 194 Elser v. Union Paving Co., 167 Pa.Super. 62, 74 A.2d 529 Desjourdy v. Mesrobian, 52 R.I. 146, 158 A. 719; contra, Handeland v. Brown, 216 N.W.2d 574 It is also consistent with the Restatement of Torts 2d, which provides in section 49......
-
Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt
...Schimmel v. Greenway, (1963) 107 Ga.App. 257, 129 S.E.2d 542; Rex v. Hunter, (1958) 20 N.J. 489, 140 A.2d 753; Desjourdy v. Mesrobian, (1932) R.I., 52 R.I. 146, 158 A. 719.8 The appellants cite for this proposition the concurring opinion of Judge Sullivan in Martin v. Indianapolis Morris Pl......
-
Wilkinson v. Harrington
...Liab. Ins. Co., 51 R.I. 452, 155 A. 526, 83 A.L.R. 745; Luft v. Factory Mutual Liab. Ins. Co., 53 R.I. 238, 165 A. 776; Desjourdy v. Mesrobian, 52 R.I. 146, 158 A. 719; Byron v. Great American Indemnity Co., 54 R.I. 405, 173 A. 546.2 § 9-1-20. Time of accrual of concealed cause of action.-I......