Hunt v. Boston Terminal Co.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1912
• Citation: 98 N.E. 786,212 Mass. 99
• Parties: HUNT v. BOSTON TERMINAL CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

212 Mass. 99

98 N.E. 786

HUNT v. BOSTON TERMINAL CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 24, 1912

COUNSEL

E. P. Saltonstall and A. M. Beale, both of Boston for plaintiff.

John L Hall and Joseph Wentworth, both of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is an action by a husband to recover compensation for expenses incurred by him in consequence of an injury to his wife occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. At the close of the charge there was a colloquy between counsel and court in the hearing of the jury. The jury were instructed to treat what was then said by the court to the counsel as said to them. In substance they then were told that it made no difference how much the plaintiff had paid for surgeons and physicians, he could only recover the fair value of such services so far as they were rendered in the treatment of physical ills resulting from the defendant's tort, and that he could not recover unless the services rendered were such that the doctors, if plaintiffs in an action against him, could recover, and that his right of action was measured only by his legal obligation to pay them. This was correct. It was assented to by the defendant. If anything inconsistent with this had been said earlier in the charge, this was the final statement of the judge and corrected anything to the contrary which had gone before. Todd v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 208 Mass. 505, 94 N.E. 683, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1005. It seems to cover the whole field for which recovery was sought. It is doubtful if under these circumstances the previous exceptions saved by the defendant were not waived. McCart v. Squire, 150 Mass. 484, 23 N.E. 323; Muller v. Powers, 174 Mass. 555, 55 N.E. 323.

But assuming that all the defendant's exceptions are open, no error is shown. The superior court rightly refused to give the requests for rulings presented by the defendant. They were all based upon fragmentary and indecisive parts of the evidence. Moreover, none were correct statements of the law, because they assumed that the test is whether the services rendered in fact by the physicians were necessary. The event may have shown them to be unnecessary, and yet they may have been wise in the light of facts known at the time they were rendered.

The requests of the plaintiff as modified by the court and the portions of the charge to which exceptions were taken were in accordance with McGarrahan v. N. Y., N.H. & H. R. R Co., 171 Mass. 211, 50 N.E. 610, and did not go beyond it. The rule there stated is that where a person is injured by another's negligence, and uses reasonable care in selecting a...