Mcdaniel v. Mills
| Decision Date | 12 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 180.) |
| Citation | 148 S.E. 440 |
| Parties | McDANIEL. v. TRENT MILLS, Ino. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Jones County; Daniels, Judge.
Action by Myrtle A. McDaniel against the Trent Mills, Inc. From a judgment overruling a demurrer, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Civil action, brought by plaintiff, wife of C. S. McDaniel, in her own right, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by her as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant in inflicting serious and permanent injuries upon her husband while he was engaged in the discharge of his duties as an employee of the defendant.
Plaintiff alleges that she was living with her husband at the time of his injury; that she has continued to live with him ever since; and that in consequence of the defendant's negligence, which caused serious and permanent injury to her husband, she has suffered damages as follows: (1) Heavy expenses incurred and paid by her, made necessary by her husband's injuries; (2) services performed in nursing and caring for him; (3) loss of support and maintenance; (4) loss of consortium; (5) mental anguish.
A demurrer was interposed by the defendant upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that In reality no cause of action exists in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant
From a judgment overruling the demurrer, the defendant appeals, assigning error.
J. Laurence Jones, of Charlotte, and Guion & Guion, of Newbern, for appellant.
McKinnon Carmichael and Warren & Warren, all of Newbern, for appellee.
The appeal presents the single question as to whether a wife* who Is living with her husband, can maintain an action, in her own right, for damages of any kind, alleged to have been sustained by her, on account of serious and permanent injuries negligently inflicted upon her husband by athird party. We think so. Hinnant v. Power Co., 189 N. C. 120, 126 S. E. 307; Hipp v. Dupont, 182 N. C. 9, 108 S. E. 318, 18 A. L. R. 873.
But she can recover nothing in her own right which her husband could recover or which his personal representatives could recover in case his death resulted from the injury. Hipp v. Dupont, supra. Nor can she recover for services performed by her in nursing and caring for her husband (Chicago, etc. Transit Co. v. Moore [C. C. A.] 259 P. 490); or for loss of consortium or mental anguish (Hinnant v. Power Co., supra); or for loss of support and maintenance (Craig v. Lumber Co., 1S9 N. C. 137, 126 S. E. 312).
But when a wife, living with her husband, has been impelled, through the natural and ordinary considerations of family life, to expend money out of her own personal estate, as a proximate result of a negligent injury inflicted upon her husband by a third person, and for which neither he nor his personal representatives can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acuff v. Schmit
...supra; Tobiassen v. Polley, 96 N.J.L. 66, 114 A. 153; Giggey v. Gallagher Transp. Co., 101 Colo. 258, 72 P.2d 1100; McDaniel v. Trent Mills, 197 N.C. 342, 148 S.E. 440; Feneff v. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 203 Mass. 278, 89 N.E. 436, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 1024; Eschenbach v. Benjamin, 195 Minn. ......
-
Werthan Bag Corp. v. Agnew, 11578
...since been effectively overruled. Hinnant v. Tidewater Power Co., 1925, 189 N.C. 120, 126 S.E. 307, 37 A.L.R. 889; McDaniel v. Trent Mills, 1929, 197 N.C. 342, 148 S.E. 440; Helmstetler v. Duke Power Co., 1945, 224 N.C. 821, 32 S.E.2d 611." But the jurist went on to say that, after careful ......
- Tieffenbrun v. Flannery
-
Hansen v. Hayes
...to the right of a wife to recover expenses incurred by her on account of the negligent injury of her husband. In McDaniel v. Trent Mills, Inc., 197 N.C. 342, 148 S.E. 440, the court "But when a wife, living with her husband, has been impelled, through the natural and ordinary considerations......