Parkinson v. Kortum

• Decision Date: 08 July 1910
• Citation: 148 Iowa 217,127 N.W. 208
• Parties: PARKINSON v. KORTUM.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

148 Iowa 217

127 N.W. 208

PARKINSON

v.KORTUM.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 8, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Lyon County; Wm. Hutchinson, Judge.

Action to recover damages for failure of defendant as plaintiff's tenant to deliver to plaintiff his proper share of the crops raised on the leased premises. By answer, the defendant interposed a denial of the allegations of the petition, and also two counterclaims, one for damages resulting from threats of personal injury to defendant's wife, causing the premature delivery of a child and her insanity as a consequence, and the other for the recovery back of overpayments made by defendant to plaintiff on account of rent. On trial to a jury of these and other issues not material on this appeal, there was a general verdict for defendant, and from judgment on this verdict plaintiff appeals. Reversed.E. C. Roach, for appellant.

S. D. Riniker, for appellee.

McCLAIN, J.

There was evidence tending to sustain plaintiff's claim that defendant had not delivered one-half the corn crop raised on the leased premises by defendant during the year 1908, as required by the lease, and as, under the instructions, the jury might have returned the general verdict for defendant under a finding that the damages suffered by defendant under one or the other of his counterclaims was equal to the damage suffered by plaintiff in being deprived of his proper share of the corn crop, it is necessary to determine whether the two counterclaims above described were properly submitted to the jury.

1. The counterclaim relating to injury to plaintiff's wife, depriving him of her companionship and help, was not predicated upon actual, physical injury directly resulting in permanent or temporary disability, but on fright and shock occasioned by threats and physical violence which produced a premature delivery of a child, in consequence of which defendant's wife became partially insane, and thereby incapable of caring for her children and affording companionship to her husband. The contention of plaintiff on the trial was that the alleged damages of this character were too remote and speculative, and not the proximate result of the acts of the plaintiff from which the alleged damage accrued, and that there was no evidence justifying the submission of this counterclaim to the jury.

The testimony relied on for appellee tended to show that on one occasion when a man by the name of De Vaul was assisting the plaintiff in taking away some planks from the dooryard of the house on the leased premises occupied by defendant's family, defendant's wife came out of the house, requested De Vaul not to carry away a certain plank, and took hold of one end of it for the purpose of assisting him in putting it back where it had been used to walk on, and that thereupon plaintiff, who was near by, came toward defendant's wife in a threatening attitude, saying that he wanted the plank, and taking hold of it, gave it a twist so as to bump against the woman's side, at the same time slipping and falling so that his face was cut on nails which were in the plank. Defendant's wife did not at this time manifest any pain or suffering as the result of violence, and continued for some minutes in conversation with De Vaul after plaintiff had withdrawn from the scene. But according to the testimony of her children who were present, she soon after went into the house and commenced to act in an hysterical manner, laughing and crying alternately, and continued to show hysteria at intervals until 10 days afterward, when she was delivered of a child which lived but a few hours.

This was in October, and she continued to show symptoms of mental disturbance until January, when a physician was called to examine her, and found her to be suffering from a derangement which continued until the trial. In the meantime the defendant had removed his family to a farm in South Dakota. He had not placed his wife in an asylum, but she continued to carry on her household work, though with greatly impaired efficiency. The doctor who attended at the confinement, making two visits, did not discover any signs of mental derangement, and his attention was not called to any peculiarities of conduct on the part of the wife, but both he and another physician, examined as experts, testified that the derangement might have been due to the excitement produced by the controversy with plaintiff and the impact of the plank against the woman's side or abdomen, causing a premature delivery.

It is not contended for appellee that the wife's mental derangement was the direct or immediate result of fright, shock, or physical injury occasioned by the acts...