Donald v. City of Ballard

• Decision Date: 04 April 1904
• Citation: 34 Wash. 576,76 P. 80
• Parties: DONALD v. CITY OF BALLARD.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

76 P. 80

34 Wash. 576

DONALD v. CITY OF BALLARD.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 4, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by John G. Donald, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, Thomas B. Donald, against the city of Ballard. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John W Whitham, for appellant.

McCafferty & Kane, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to be due to a defective sidewalk negligently maintained within the limits of the defendant city. The injured plaintiff, John Grover Donald, is a minor, and the suit was brought by Thomas B. Donald as guardian ad litem, the latter being also the father of said minor. The complaint alleges in detail damages as follows: $10,000 for injury to the leg, $5,000 for pain and suffering, and $300 for expenses for medical attendance nursing, and medicines in aiding and attempting to cure the injury. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $600. The city moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but the motion was denied. This was followed by a motion for arrest of judgment, which was also denied. Judgment was then entered for the amount of the verdict, and the city has appealed.

As appellant's counsel says in his brief, all errors urged in this court are predicated upon the complaint, and all point to the one objection that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue for the claim of $300 for medical attendance nursing, and medicine. Testimony of the physician as to the value of his services was introduced without objection, and the court instructed the jury that they should included in their verdict such a sum for that purpose as they should find from the evidence would compensate the plaintiff, not exceeding the sum of $300, the amount demanded in the complaint for that item of alleged damage. The verdict returned was general, and no sum was specified for the above item, or for any other in particular. Appellant's argument is that no cause of action lies in favor of the minor for the recovery of amounts expended for medical attendance and nursing, but that the father alone can maintain an action therefor. Since this action is brought in behalf of the minor only, it is urged that a recovery in this suit for expenses of medical services and nursing will not be a bar to recovery by the father in another action. In the case of Daly v. Everett...