Graves v. Peck
| Decision Date | 07 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | 24211 |
| Citation | 209 N.W. 617,114 Neb. 745 |
| Parties | GENEVIEVE GRAVES, APPELLEE, v. ROYAL PECK, APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Hamilton county: LOVEL S HASTINGS, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
J. E Dorshimer and J. H. Grosvenor, for appellant.
F. E Edgerton, contra.
Heard before MORRISSEY, C.J., ROSE, DEAN, DAY, GOOD and EBERLY, JJ., and REDICK, District Judge.
Action to recover $ 50,000 for indecent assault. The plaintiff is a married woman, 29, not living with her husband, having a daughter 11 or 12 years old, and at the time in question occupied the position of housekeeper in the home of the defendant, a widower, 79 years old, having a son, married daughter and granddaughter. The petition alleges that on September 15, 1923, while plaintiff was in bed recovering from an illness, the defendant came to her room and made an extremely indecent assault and battery upon her person, the details of which we prefer to leave to the imagination of a prurient mind, which alone can do the subject justice. Plaintiff further alleges that the acts of defendant were without her consent and against the most vigorous defense of which she was capable at the time; that during the struggle and in an endeavor to force plaintiff to lie upon the bed, defendant seized her right leg with such force as to bruise and twist it, and strained it in such manner as to cause paralysis thereof; that as a result of such assault she has been rendered unable to perform her usual household duties and has become a helpless cripple.
Defendant answered the petition, admitting the employment and age of the plaintiff, that she was sick in bed and had been so confined for over two weeks, and denies each and every other allegation of the petition. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $ 14,900, upon which judgment was rendered and motion for new trial overruled and defendant appeals.
Defendant's first contention is that the plaintiff, being a married woman, is not entitled to sue for her injuries, but the only case cited is City of Central City v. Engle, 65 Neb. 885, 91 N.W. 849, which merely announces the well-established rule that a married woman, not the owner of a separate estate nor engaged in any business or service except those pertaining to her husband's household, is not entitled to recover damages for loss of earnings or diminished capacity to earn money as the result of her injury; but since the adoption of the married women's act in this state we have not heretofore met the claim of disability of a woman on account of coverture to sue in her own name for personal injuries.
It is next contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. It therefore became necessary for us to examine the evidence. We have done so with critical care and have concluded that this assignment is not well taken. The evidence for the plaintiff as to the principal facts comes exclusively from the plaintiff and her young daughter and, of course, in the nature of things, must be scrutinized with great care. The defendant insists that the case is within the reasoning which required the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case to be corroborated, but we are not willing to go that far. However, the daughter's testimony, if believed, would seem to be sufficient corroboration, and taken together with the fact as appears from the great preponderance of the testimony that prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial