House v. Canadian Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,239 |
| Citation | 192 N.W. 496,155 Minn. 65 |
| Parties | PETER VAN HOUSE v. CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Beltrami county to recover $3,000 for the loss of services and companionship of plaintiff's wife and for expenses incurred by attendance upon her. The case was tried before Wright, J., who when plaintiff rested denied the motion of Canadian Northern Railway Company to dismiss the action, and at the close of the testimony denied plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,000. From an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, Canadian Northern Railway Company and Canadian National Railways appealed. Affirmed.
Charge as to husband's expense incurred because of injury to wife, not prejudicial.
1. Evidence of the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by a husband in taking his wife to a physician for examination and medical advice was received without objection. In instructing the jury the court referred to it as an item of expense incurred by the husband who brought an action to recover damages for loss of his wife's services and expenses occasioned by her personal injuries due to defendants' negligence. Held there was no prejudicial error in the instruction.
Husband may recover value of his services in nursing his wife.
2. A husband may recover the reasonable value of his own services in nursing his wife. There was sufficient proof of their value to entitle him to a recovery.
Damages not excessive.
3. The damages awarded are not excessive.
Hector Baxter, George E. Ericson and W. E. Rowe, for appellants.
Middleton & Middleton, for respondents.
Action for damages for loss of services and expenses occasioned by bodily injuries to plaintiff's wife, due to defendants' negligence. Plaintiff had a verdict and defendants appealed from an order denying their motion in the alternative for judgment or a new trial.
Plaintiff is the husband of Phebe Van House. She was plaintiff in an action against these defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendants' appeal in that action was heard at the same time as this appeal and the opinion therein is found on page 59, supra. Our disposition of the wife's case determines all the questions in this case except that of damages. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,000. Defendants contend that the verdict is so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice. The court charged that, if the verdict was in plaintiff's favor, the measure of damages was compensation for the loss of the services and companionship of his wife and, in addition, the reasonable expenses he had incurred on account of her injuries. As to the last item of damage, this was said:
The propriety of this statement is challenged on two grounds: The first, that the trip to Warren was made, not to obtain medical treatment for the wife, but to secure evidence for use at the trial, and hence the expense was not a proper item for consideration by the jury; and the second that, if plaintiff could recover at all for his services in nursing his wife, he could recover only the reasonable value of such services and that there had been no proof thereof.
As to the first point, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Warren trip was made solely to get evidence. The evidence warrants the inference that it was made to consult Dr. Bratrud and get the benefit of his advice after he had examined Mrs. Van House. There was no objection to proof of the expense of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial