Kenure v. Brainerd & Armstrong Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1914 |
| Citation | 88 Conn. 266,91 A. 185 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | KENURE v. BRAINERD & ARMSTRONG CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.
Action by Margaret Kenure against the Brainerd & Armstrong Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Michael Kenealy, of Stamford, and Charles V. James, of Norwich, for appellant. Hadlai A. Hull, Charles Hadlai Hull, and Frank L. McGuire, all of New London, for appellee.
The plaintiff is a minor and sues by her father, as next friend. The complaint alleges serious and permanent physical injuries caused by the defendant's negligence, resulting in great pain and suffering to her, in incapacitating her to pursue a course of study in stenography which she had been theretofore pursuing, and in causing her to expend a large sum of money in being cured. The finding shows that evidence was introduced in support of these claims, and also to prove that her earning capacity had, from the time of her injury, been seriously impaired and decreased, and that, for a period of about one year immediately following her injury, she was unable to work. It also states that there was no evidence showing, or tending to show, that she had at any time been emancipated by her parents or either of them, or that she was entitled to her own earnings.
The charge of the court is criticised because it failed to inform the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for her loss of time and services during her minority, because it failed to inform them that she was not entitled to recover for loss or impairment of earning capacity during her minority or for any pecuniary damage caused by her injuries during her minority, and because of the statement in the charge that "no claim is made before you that in this action she is entitled to recover anything for her loss of time up to the present."
It is true, as claimed by the defendant, that the plaintiff's time and services during her minority belonged to her father, unless she had been emancipated by him. But the father, by emancipating her, could permit her to appropriate her time and services to herself, or might waive his right to payment for such services or to damages for being deprived of them by the defendant's negligence. It does not appear that he had in fact emancipated her prior to her injuries complained of. But he brings this action as next friend of the plaintiff. Among the damages sought to be recovered are loss of earning capacity and inability to work for a year following her injury and moneys expended in being cured. The right to recover for these, the plaintiff being a minor, was in the father, and not in her. Unless she had been emancipated, he was liable for the expenses of her cure and was entitled to the damages if her injuries incapacitated her for work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. H. Weston Lumber Co.
...Company, 150 F. 612; Townsend v. Scurlock, 99 S.W. 123; David v. Tucker, 78 S.E. 909; Browning v. Boswell, 215 F. 125; Kinnure v. Brainerd & Armstrong Co., 91 A. 185; Crumley v. Laurens Banking Company, 81 S.E. Reeve v. Pruit, 142 P. 1019; Bedie v. Bates, 156 N.E. 8; Officer v. J. L. Owen, ......
-
Robertson, State Revenue Agent, v. H. Weston Lumber Co.
... ... 732), 85 N.E. 381; ... Centaru Co. v. Robinson, 91 F ... 889; Weiler v. Armstrong, 51 So ... 268; Norfolk & Western R. R. Co. v ... Mundy, 65 S.E. 61; Cople v ... Tucker, 78 S.E. 909; Browning v ... Boswell, 215 F. 125; Kinnure v ... Brainerd & Armstrong Co., 91 A. 185; ... Crumley v. Laurens Banking ... Company, 81 S.E. 871; ... ...
-
Scanlon v. Kansas City
... ... McNab, 150 Ala. 332; Moline ... Timber Co. v. Taylor, 144 Ark. 317, 222 S.W. 371; ... Kenure v. Brainerd & A. Co., 88 Conn. 265, 91 A ... 185; Chicago Screw Co. v. Weiss, 203 Ill. 536, 68 ... ...
-
Wood v. Wood.
...right to the minor's services during his minority, as well as to the control, for most purposes, of his person. Kenure v. Brainerd & Armstrong Co., 88 Conn. 265, 267, 91 A. 185; [1] Schouler on Domestic Relations (6th Ed.) §§ 807-809.’ Mesite v. Kirchenstein, supra [109 Conn. 77, 145 A. 754......