Norfolk Ry. & Light Co v. Williar

• Decision Date: 14 December 1905
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: NORFOLK RY. & LIGHT CO. v. WILLIAR.

52 S.E. 380

104 Va. 679

NORFOLK RY. & LIGHT CO.

v.WILLIAR.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Dec. 14, 1905.

Husband and Wife—Injuries to Wife— Damages.

Under the married woman's act (Acts 1899-1900, p. 1240, c. 1139 [Va. Code 1904, p. 1138]), the husband is entitled to the services of his wife; and. in an action by a wife for injuries, it is error to instruct that, in assessing the damages, the jury can consider the diminution, if any, of the plaintiff's physical ability to perform the ordinary duties of life.

Error to Law and Chancery Court of City of Norfolk.

Action by Margie E. Williar against the Norfolk Railway & Light Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

White, Tunstall & Thorn, for plaintiff in error.

R. B. Tibbett and Brooke & Elliott, for defendant in error.

HARRISON, J. This action was instituted by Margie E. Williar, a married woman, to recover damage's for personal injuries caused, as alleged, by a collision between two cars of the plaintiff in error, in one of which she was a passenger.

The declaration charges that by said collision, without contributing thereto by any act or neglect on her part, and as the direct result thereof, she was badly bruised, etc., and suffered therefrom great nervous shock, physical pain, and anguish of mind, and as the direct result thereof she had become permanently disabled and a helpless invalid.

The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $4,500, which the court of law and chancery of the city of Norfolk refused to set aside, and entered thereon the judgment to which this writ of error was awarded.

The first assignment of error is to the action of the court in giving for the plaintiff the following instruction:

"The court instructs the jury that, if they find for the plaintiff, they may, in assessing damages, take into consideration her physical and mental suffering, if any, arising from said injury; the diminution, if any, of her physical ability to perform the ordinary duties of her life, caused by said injury; and whether her said injuries are of a permanent or temporary character."

This court has held that, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 103, p. 1138, of the Code of 1904, the husband is entitled to the services of his wife. Richmond, etc., Co. v. Bowles, 92 Va. 738, 24 S. E. 388; A. & D. R. Co. v. Ironmonger, 95 Va. 625, 29 S. E. 319. These cases dealt with the law touching married women and their estates as it was under chapter 103 of the Code of 1904. We now have a new married woman's act See Acts 1899-1900, p. 1240, c. 1139. A careful reading of this later act, however, discloses no ground affecting the view taken by this court in the cases cited. The new act is no broader than the prior law, and under it, therefore, the husband is still entitled to the services of his wife.

This being so, we are of opinion that it was error to instruct the jury that in assessing damages they could take into consideration the diminution, if any, of the plaintiff's physical ability to perform the ordinary duties of her life, for the reason that "the...