Ruby v. Quotidian, 24.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 24.,24.
• Citation: 183 A. 910
• Parties: RUBY et al. v. QUOTIDIAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

183 A. 910

RUBY et al.

v. QUOTIDIAN.

No. 24.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 26, 1936.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County.

Action by Bessie Ruby and husband against Emil Quotidian. From the judgment, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Argued January term, 1936, before BROGAN, C. J., and LLOYD and DONGES, JJ.

Carey & Lane, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Edward J. Madden, of Jersey City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on appeal.

The complaint consists of two counts. The first count alleges that on December 20, 1932, the plaintiff Bessie Ruby was injured through the negligence of the defendant and seeks damages therefor. In the second count, Michael Ruby, husband of Bessie, alleges that he was obliged to hire assistance to take care of his wife's usual household duties for a long period of time and was obliged to expend large sums of money for hospital care, medical treatment, medicines, nurses, and doctors' expenses. There was no claim for compensation for the loss of consortium. The trial judge, on defendant's motion, struck out the third paragraph of the second count, alleging payment of medical expenses and the like, on the ground that the doctors' bills and hospital bill, had not been proved.

The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff Bessie Ruby in the sum of $2,400 and a verdict of no cause of action against Michael Ruby. A rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside on the ground that the verdicts are irreconcilable; the result of mistake; and excessive, was allowed and discharged by the trial judge.

On this appeal this action is alleged to be error and an abuse of discretion. Matters resting in discretion will not generally be reviewed on appeal, but may be so dealt with where abuse of discretion is shown. Martin v. Lehigh Valley R. Co, 114 N.J.Law, 243, 176 A. 665.

In the instant case there was testimony that a Miss Barry for almost three years came every Saturday to plaintiffs' home and did some cleaning for which she was paid 75 cents a week, and that plaintiff's sister-in-law, Mrs. Young, was paid $2 a day for two weeks. While there was no claim in the complaint for loss of consortium, the court, without objection, charged the jury as follows:

"Mr. Michael Ruby is joined as a plaintiff here, because he says that he has been deprived of his wife's society and companionship for the time she has been ill. If you find that Mrs. Ruby is...