Ellis v. Hathaway, 12499
| Decision Date | 07 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 12499,12499 |
| Parties | d 143 Ronald E. ELLIS and Sarah Ellis, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Wanda F. HATHAWAY, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
S. Rex Lewis, Howard & Lewis, Provo, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Don J. Hanson, Salt Lake City, for defendant-respondent.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment for defendant in a personal injury action. A collision occurred in an intersection controlled by a flashing traffic light: Red (stop) for the defendant and yellow (caution) for the plaintiffs. The defendant came to a stop at the edge of the favored highway and then pulled into the intersection, where a collision occurred. She did not see the plaintiffs' car until impact, although the road was straight and visibility good.
Plaintiffs are husband and wife. The husband was driving the car. He sued for injuries which he claims he received to his neck. The wife sued for claimed loss of support, companionship, love, and affection. She does not call it consortium.
The wife has no basis for her action. At common law she could not sue for loss of consortium, and under the Married Women's Act no cause of action was given to her for negligent injury to her husband. Our statute 1 placed husband and wife on an equal basis by saying: '. . . There shall be no right of recovery by the husband on account of personal injury or wrong to his wife, . . .'
The husband, hereafter called plaintiff, settled his cause of action for his personal injuries one month after it occurred and was paid $859.00 for doing so. He claims that it was an injury to his hand for which he settled and that both he and the insurance adjuster for the defendant so understood. He now claims that subsequent to the settlement he became aware of an injury to his cervical spine, and he is seeking damages for this claimed injury.
His case was tried to a jury, and he complains about the giving of an instruction on unavoidable accident. The defendant neither relied upon the doctrine nor requested such an instruction. The court gave the instruction on his own initiative.
We think the instruction was not warranted and would tend to mislead the jury. However, the plaintiff had two burdens before he could recover: (a) He had to get the settlement set aside, and (b) he had to show negligence on the part of the defendant.
The plaintiff successfully resisted a motion of the defendant to try the issue of settlement separate and apart from the issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hackford v. Utah Power & Light Co.
...12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Hackford's claim. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on the authority of Ellis v. Hathaway, 27 Utah 2d 143, 493 P.2d 985 (1972), and Tjas v. Proctor, 591 P.2d 438 (Utah 1978). Those cases held that the common law cause of action for loss of consor......
-
Randle v. Allen, 900189
...1983); Anderton v. Montgomery, 607 P.2d 828, 833 (Utah 1980); Stringham v. Broderick, 529 P.2d 425 (Utah 1974); Ellis v. Hathaway, 27 Utah 2d 143, 493 P.2d 985, 986 (1972); Wagner v. Olsen, 25 Utah 2d 366, 482 P.2d 702, 705 (1971); Calahan v. Wood, 24 Utah 2d 8, 465 P.2d 169 (1970); Woodhou......
-
Boucher By and Through Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center, a Div. of IHC Hospitals, Inc.
...see also Black v. United States, 263 F.Supp. 470, 476-80 (D.Utah 1967); Tjas v. Proctor, 591 P.2d 438, 440 (Utah 1979); Ellis v. Hathaway, 493 P.2d 985, 986 (Utah 1972).33 Several jurisdictions that have adopted filial consortium claims have done so in part because they have already recogni......
-
Whittlesey v. Miller
...73 N.M. 211, 387 P.2d 321 (1963); North Carolina: Cozart v. Chapin, 35 N.C.App. 254, 241 S.E.2d 144 (1978); Utah: Ellis v. Hathaway, 27 Utah 2d 143, 493 P.2d 985 (1972); Virginia: Carey v. Foster, 221 F.Supp. 185 (E.D.Va.1963), Aff'd, 345 F.2d 772 (4th Cir. 1965); Washington: Ash v. S. S. M......