Ruediger v. Klink, 41

• Decision Date: 04 September 1956
• Docket Number: No. 41,41
• Parties: Leonore RUEDIGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John KLINK et al., Defendants, and Leo CABALA, d/b/a Old Bar, Anna Cabala, and Alma Doody, d/b/a Ace of Clubs, Defendants and Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 248

78 N.W.2d 248

346 Mich. 357

Leonore RUEDIGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John KLINK et al., Defendants, and Leo CABALA, d/b/a Old Bar, Anna Cabala, and Alma Doody, d/b/a Ace of Clubs, Defendants and Cross-Appellants.

No. 41.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 4, 1956.

Arthur J. Kinnane and Patrick D. Neering, Bay City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Jennings, Fraser, Parsons & Trebilcock, Lansing, for defendant and appellant Alex L. Korpal.

Stanton, MacKenzie, Cartwright & Walker, Saginaw, for defendants and cross-appellants Leo Cabala, d/b/a Old Bar, and Anna Cabala.

Smith & Brooker, Bay City, for defendant and cross-appellant Alma Doody.

Before the Entire Bench.

BLACK, Justice.

Plaintiff's declaration only is before us. Such of the presented questions as are brought here must of necessity draw decision from and within the four corners thereof. In proper form it states a cause of action under the so-called civil damage act ¹ against a group of Bay county dramsellers picturesquely identified as Corky's Bar, Commodore Bar, Old Bar, Rufe's Bar, Pearl and Jerry's, Patterson's Tavern, Ace of Clubs, Blue Ribbon Bar and Charlie's Bar. Likewise in proper form it states a cause of action for negligence against a motorist--one Burtenshaw. The cause--uniting allegation plaintiff depends upon is that the civil damage act defendants sent Burtenshaw forth from their respective places of business in an intoxicated condition and that Burtenshaw as such motorist proceeded to do the expected thing by meeting, head to head on Burtenshaw's wrong side of the highway, another car driven by plaintiff's husband and occupied by plaintiff and minor children of the parties, all with grievous results quoted from such declaration as follows:

'XIV.

'That at the time of the occurrence of the matters herein complained of, the plaintiff was, and for several years prior thereto had been, the wife of the said Erbin Ruediger and resided with him as his wife in the City of Bay City, Michigan, and derived her entire support and maintenance from her said husband, who had theretofore supported and maintained her in a state of material comfort and convenience, but that by reason of the premises, the said Erbin Ruediger was so seriously injured in his body that he has ever since the said 19th day of March, 1954, been disabled from earning or producing any income whatsoever, as a consequence of which the said plaintiff has been deprived of the benefit of his earnings in her means of support and has, ever since said date, lost the benefit of her support and maintenance by her said husband and the accumulation of savings from his earnings for the benefit of the plaintiff, and has, ever since the occurrence of said motor vehicle collision, been required to depend for her support upon the charity of relatives, friends and public welfare agencies and the use and exhaustion of previously acquired savings, which would otherwise have remained for the benefit of the plaintiff in times of future adversity. Plaintiff further says that because of the serious personal injuries sustained by her said husband by reason of said motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff has lost and will lose substantial future contributions to her support and maintenance which she would otherwise have received from her said husband and that said future loss is substantial and permanent. Plaintiff further avers that her said husband was hospitalized for several months and required frequent visitations from the plaintiff in order to maintain his nervous and emotional balance so as to recover properly from his said injuries, and that throughout said hospitalization period it was necessary for your plaintiff, although herself ill and disabled because of her own injuries, hereinafter described, to travel from her home to the hospital daily in order to visit her said husband and thereby encourage his more rapid recovery, and that said visitations caused the plaintiff financial loss for traveling expense and care of her minor child, Carl Thomas Ruediger, who also sustained injuries as the result of the motor vehicle collision hereinabove described. Plaintiff further avers that after her husband returned to his home it was necessary for the plaintiff to care for and nurse him and supply all of his physical needs and that neither plaintiff nor her husband were financially able to hire nursing care at home, and that plaintiff, although ill and disabled as the result of her own injuries, was required to perform extra work in nursing and caring for her husband up to the present time and will in the future be required to perform extra work in caring for his physical wants and necessities because her said husband will require further surgical care involving an operation upon his right foot and a long period of disability thereafter during which he will be unable to walk or to attend to his personal needs; and that all of the matters alleged in this paragraph have resulted in damage to the plaintiff for which she claims compensation in this action.

'XV.

'That as a result of the collision of motor vehicles hereinabove described, the minor son of the plaintiff, Carl Thomas Ruediger, aged twenty-one months, sustained serious injuries to his person which required extensive hospitalization and medical care, and that after the release of her said son from the hospital it was necessary to place said child in the care of relatives and friends because he required day and night nursing care and plaintiff was too ill and disabled because of her own injuries to care for said child, but that when plaintiff became able to care for said child she was required to perform extra work in his care and nursing for a period of several months, which constituted a heavy burden on plaintiff because of her own weakened and partially disabled condition, and that plaintiff sustained damage thereby for which she claims compensation in this action.

'XVI

'That by reason of the premises, the plaintiff sustained many and serious injuries to and in her person, her property, her means of support and otherwise, because of which she has suffered great and irreparable damage, and that said injuries and damages consist of the following:

'(a) Bilateral fractures of the lower jaw, one of said fractures being of the right mandible at the bicuspid area compounded with gross displacement and laceration of soft tissues, and a fracture of the left mandible in the left molar area compounded intra-orally;

'(b) Bruises, abrasions and contusions of the head, face, neck, shoulders, arms, legs, torso, and particularly a severe blow to the abdomen;

'(c) That because of said injuries the plaintiff was rendered unconscious for a long period of time and was caused to be sick, sore, lame and disordered and unable to attend to her physical needs for many days, and was hospitalized for a period of fifteen days, and was obliged to undergo several surgical operations to repair the damage to her lower jaw and surrounding tissues, and to have damaged and loosened teeth held in place by wires and other devices for a long period of time, and that the fractures of her jaw have caused a permanent malformation of her lower jaw and the lower part of her face and have resulted in restricted motion or excursion of the lower mandible, with impaired articulation of her upper and lower teeth, and that her front teeth have been so displaced because of the said fractures that they present a bucktoothed appearance which, together with the malformation of the plaintiff's lower jaw, are permanent injuries and which have caused, and will throughout the plaintiff's future life cause, her to suffer great embarrassment and humiliation with resultant serious injuries and adverse effect upon her formerly naturally cheerful and friendly personality; that whereas plaintiff, prior to said injuries was a healthy, well adjusted person, she has, since said injuries, suffered a serious neurosis and almost complete change in her attitude toward life and association with other people and has become withdrawn and solitary in her habits of living, because of her fear of other people and her humiliation because of her appearance, which condition she is unable to control and which she alleges will be permanent, and that the plaintiff will in the future lose several teeth because of said fractures and will require future surgical operations for the removal of teeth and the preparation and fitting of dentures, and will have to submit to the use of artificial teeth and dentures for the remainder of her life;

'(d) That all of said injuries have caused the plaintiff great and excruciating physical and mental pain, suffering and nervous and physical disability, and will cause her pain, discomfort and disability in the future, for the rest of her life, and that because of the same the plaintiff has been permanently injured in her nervous system and has developed a deep-seated and uncontrollable fear of motor vehicles and motor vehicular traffic, which causes her frequent acute physical as well as mental distress, from which condition the plaintiff will continue to suffer throughout the rest of her life;

'(e) That plaintiff was approximately five months pregnant at the time of the infliction of said injuries, which pregnancy caused her to suffer more intensely from the effects of her injuries and from worry and anxiety over possible injury to her unborn child, because of having suffered a severe blow to her abdomen than would have been the case had she not been pregnant when injured.'

Corky's Bar brings us the first question. Its owner says the statutory cause cannot be joined with the cause for negligence, and he alleges that 'The continuation of Herbert Burtenshaw as a party defendant in this cause of action would be highly prejudicial to the rights of the other defendants.'

The trial judge disagreed with Corky's Bar and denied a motion of its owner to dismiss for...