Katz v. Cohn

• Decision Date: 08 January 1937
• Citation: 122 Conn. 338,189 A. 594
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KATZ v. COHN et al.

189 A. 594

122 Conn. 338

KATZ v. COHN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 8, 1937

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frank P. McEvoy Judge.

Action by Max Katz against Joseph S. Cohn and others, to recover damages for injuries to person and property allegedly caused by defendants' negligence, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff against the named defendant, and such defendant appeals.

No error.

De Lancey Pelgrift, of Hartford, for appellant.

David M. Reilly, of New Haven, and Edward M. Rosenthal, of Meriden for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant Cohn for damages claimed to be due by reason of a collision between an automobile in which he was riding with his wife and one being operated by the defendant Cohn. The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that he was a married man and by reason of injuries suffered by his wife in the collision, he had been obliged to make expenditures for services in her care at home after her discharge from a hospital and for other expenditures in aid of her recovery, and also that he would be compelled in the future to expend further sums for the first purpose mentioned. From answers to interrogatories submitted to the jury, it appears that they included in the verdict the sum of $1,500 for payments to be made in the future by the plaintiff for the care of and assistance to his wife. While the appeal is taken from the refusal of the trial court to set aside the entire verdict, the sole issue presented to us is the right of the plaintiff to recover this sum.

Instead of causing the evidence to be printed in the record, the parties have filed a stipulation containing a brief summary of so much of it as is relevant to the issue upon the appeal. They have thus saved a considerable expense to the parties and to the State and appreciably lightened the burden upon the court and its officers. Where such a procedure can be adopted it is highly commendable.

There was evidence that the plaintiff's wife would be partially incapacitated from taking care of her own personal needs for some time subsequent to the trial of the case; that she would require the actual care and constant attention of a personal attendant or maid for a period of three years or more; and that the plaintiff would be obligated to spend $1,716 to secure such attendant or maid. The accident out of which the action arose was the same one as was the basis of an action brought by the plaintiff's wife against the same defendants which was before us at a previous term; Katz v. Cohn, 121 Conn. 545, 186 A. 494; and the parties further stipulated that the items of recovery in this action for the care of and attention to the wife were not claimed by her in that action. Disregarding any incidental questions which might arise, the defendant Cohn rests his contention upon the ground that a husband has no right to recover expenses which will probably be incurred in the future for attendance upon and personal care of his wife, made necessary by the personal injuries she suffered.

Where a husband has, before the action, expended money for the care of and personal attention to his wife, made necessary by personal injuries suffered by her, the right to recover those expenditures ordinarily belongs to him and not to her. Fuller v. Naugatuck R. Co., 21 Conn. 557, 571; Tompkins v. West, 56 Conn. 478, 486, 16 A. 237, 239; Marri v. Stamford Street R. Co., 84 Conn. 9, 22, 78 A. 582, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1042, Ann.Cas.1912B. 1120; Quackenbush v. Vallario, 114 Conn. 652, 657, 159 A 893. In Tompkins v. West, an action to recover damages for personal injuries to the wife in which the husband joined as a merely nominal party, the court charged the jury that in estimating the damages they were to consider among other elements " the expenses of her sickness." We held this error, saying: " In such cases it is clear that the right of action, so far as the expenses are concerned, is in the husband alone. It was his duty to pay such expenses, and the presumption is he did so." The basis of recovery of expenses paid by the husband is that they were paid by him, not as a volunteer, but in pursuance of his duty to support his family. See Johnston v. Moeller, 93 Conn. 590, 593, 107 A. 566. One entitled to recover expenses caused by personal injury may...