Edminster v. Thorp
| Decision Date | 16 January 1951 |
| Citation | 226 P.2d 373,101 Cal.App.2d 756 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | EDMINSTER et al. v. THORP et al. Civ. 7824. |
Russell A. Harris, by Leo Fitzwilliam, Sacramento, for appellants.
Carlton Shadwell, Redding, Charles H. Andrews, Chico, for respondents.
Plaintiffs, Phillip Maurice Edminster and his wife, Laura G. Edminster, brought this action to recover damages for injuries suffered by Mrs. Edminster which were alleged to have been sustained in an automobile accident due to negligence on the part of defendant Howard Thorp, an employee of defendant Watkins Lumber Co., which company was the owner of the car of which Thorp was the driver. Defendants admitted negligence and liability, and the only issue tried was that of damages. A judgment in favor of Mrs. Edminster based upon the verdict of a jury has been satisfied.
This appeal is taken from the judgment of $4000 in favor of Phillip Edminster, the question raised, as stated in appellants' opening brief, being 'Was it prejudicial and reversible error for the Court to admit over objection by the defendants, evidence of the cost to plaintiff Phillip Maurice Edminster for household help supposedly made necessary as a result of his wife's injuries, when the plaintiffs' complaint contained no allegation of such special damage.'
The complaint alleged:
'That prior to said accident, said plaintiff Laura G. Edminster, the wife of plaintiff Phillip Maurice Edminster, was in good health and fully capable of and actually did perform all of the usual duties of a housewife; that as a result of said injuries, said plaintiff Laura Edminster has been, and wife be for a long time to come unable to perform said duties; that by reason of the injuries to the said wife of plaintiff Phillip Maurice Edminster, said plaintiff has been and will be for long time to come, deprived of the cohabitation and services and society of his said wife to his damage in the sum of $5,000.00, all of which is the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of said defendants, as hereinabove alleged.'
Plaintiff husband testified, over the objection of defendants, that he had paid over $320 for household help, which amount, on cross-examination, was stated to have been at the rate of $1.00 per hour for for an eight-hour day once a week for 40 weeks. He also urged that the cost of such household help during the ensuing five years--the period which medical testimony showed was the probable duration of disability of Mrs. Edminster--would be $2080.00, which the jury should take into account in fixing the amount of the damages awarded to him.
Appellants' contention is that such damages were not specially pleaded, and, therefore, evidence of the amount paid out was not admissible; while respondent urges that the expenses incurred by him as a result of the injuries to his wife are general, and not special damages, and that his pleading was sufficient anyhow, as the allegation that prior to the accident his wife was in good health and performed all of the usual duties of a housewife, and that since his injuries she has been and will be for a long time to come, unable to perform said duties, fully informed defendants that he claimed damages for the expense of employing household help necessitated by the injuries suffered by his wife.
In Meek v. Pacific Electric Railway Co., 175 Cal. 53, 55, 164 p. 1117, the allegation of the complaint was:
'That before said accident said plaintiff Evalena Meek was an able-bodied woman; sound in mind and body; made part of her own clothes; did the housework for herself and husband, and when she had any one employed to assist in the housework she overlooked the same, and, in fact, was in charge and control of the household and performed the usual duties that a housewife performs in that behalf; but that since said accident said plaintiff Evalena Meek has been unable to perform, and will never be able to perform, the said duties as aforesaid, to the plaintiff J. F. Meek's damage in the sum of [twenty thousand dollars] $20,000.'
This pleading was held to be sufficient in that case to sustain a judgment for the husband.
Also in Martin v. Southern Pacific Co., 130 Cal. 285, 62 P. 515, the complaint alleged that by reason of the negligence of the defendant the injuries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deshotel v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
...App.Div. 389, 244 N.Y.S. 663. See also Hagy v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp., 122 Cal.App.2d 361, 374, 265 P.2d 86; Edminster v. Thorp, 101 Cal.App.2d 756, 759, 226 P.2d 373.' Gist v. French, 136 Cal.App.2d 247, 256, 288 P.2d 1003, 1009. 'This result poses no problems in ascertaining the wife......
-
Black v. United States
...could also consider the fact that work for which help was hired was not all that previously performed by Mrs. Paul. Edminster v. Thorp, 101 Cal.App.2d 756, 226 P.2d 373. The award must also include the cost of hiring help in the future, as well as damages for those services rendered in the ......
-
Gist v. French
...389, 244 N.Y.S. 663. See also Hagy v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, 122 Cal.App.2d 361, 374, 265 P.2d 86; Edminster v. Thorp, 101 Cal.App.2d 756, 759, 226 P.2d 373. Testimony as to the value of such loss is not necessary. In the case at bar, the proof was that prior to the misfortune t......
-
Paul v. Kirkendall, 7957
...could also consider the fact that work for which help was hired was not all that previously performed by Mrs. Paul. Edminster v. Thorp, 101 Cal.App.2d 756, 226 P.2d 373. The award must also include the cost of hiring help in the future, as well as damages for those services rendered in the ......