Maddock v. McNiven

• Decision Date: 30 June 1926
• Docket Number: 19942.
• Citation: Maddock v. McNiven, 139 Wash. 412, 247 P. 467 (Wash. 1926)
• Parties: MADDOCK v. McNIVEN et ux. MADDOCK et al. v. SAME.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

247 P. 467

139 Wash. 412

MADDOCK v. McNIVEN et ux.

MADDOCK et al. v. SAME.

No. 19942.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 30, 1926

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; Reynolds, Judge.

Actions by Joseph Maddock, as administrator of the estate of Hattie J. Maddock, deceased, and by Joseph Maddock and others against J. C. McNiven and wife. The cases were tried together, and verdict and judgment for plaintiffs were rendered in the first, but for defendants in the second action. From orders granting plaintiffs' motions for new trial in each case, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Bates &amp Peterson, of Tacoma, and C. D. Cunningham, of Centralia, for appellants.

Oakley & Thompson, of Tacoma, for respondents.

BRIDGES, J.

A detailed statement of the facts will not be necessary for a discussion of the questions involved in this appeal.

Mrs Hattie J. Maddock was riding in an automobile being driven by Mrs. Graham. The auto was proceeding northerly on Iron street, towards the intersection of that street and Magnolia street in the city of Centralia. The defendant J. C. McNiven at the same time, was driving his automobile, which belonged to himself and his wife, westerly along Magnolia street towards the intersection above mentioned. At that point a collision occurred, resulting in very serious injuries to Mrs. Maddock. Her pelvis bone was fractured, her bladder was lacerated, and she was otherwise injured and bruised. She was at once taken to a hospital, where an operation was performed upon her, but several days thereafter she died as a result of her injuries. Two suits were brought. One, which we shall hereafter refer to as the first suit, was brought by Joseph Maddock, as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Maddock, who was his wife, to recover damages for the loss of services sustained by him as her surviving husband, and for loss of training sustained by Edith Maddock, the 12 year old daughter of Joseph Maddock and his deceased wife. The other case, which we shall mention hereafter as the second suit, was brought by the surviving husband and five children of the deceased to recover damages for the pain and suffering endured by her from the time of the accident to her death. When the first case was called for trial, the court consolidated the two cases for the purpose of trial; it being evident to him that most of the testimony which would be introduced would apply equally to both cases. The plaintiffs objected to the consolidation. The court required the jury to bring in separate verdicts in each case, and also instructed that, if it found for the plaintiffs in the first case, then it should segregate the amount found for the husband and for the minor daughter. The testimony showed that Joseph Maddock, the husband, had expended $677.50 for medical hospital, and funeral expenses. The principal question in each case was whether defendants had been negligent.

In the first case, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,427.50, which it segregated as follows: To Joseph Maddock, the husband, $1,427.50; and to Edith Maddock the minor child, $1,000. In the second case (that is, the one brought by the husband and all the children to recover on account of the pain and suffering endured by the deceased) the verdict was in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs in each case moved for a new trial; the motions...