Rutland v. Fuels, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 50443,50443,3
• Citation: 135 Ga.App. 143,217 S.E.2d 167
• Parties: Mrs. J. B. RUTLAND v. FUELS, INC
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 167

217 S.E.2d 167

135 Ga.App. 143

Mrs. J. B. RUTLAND v. FUELS, INC.

No. 50443.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

May 23, 1975.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1975.

Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., Dunaway & Perry, Rockmart, for appellant.

A. Ed Lane, Decatur, G. Robert Howard, Marietta, for appellee.

EVANS, Judge.

An automobile driven by Jerry B. Rutland collided with another automobile driven by Jimmy Lee Ballew, and owned by Fuels, Inc.

Both Rutland and his wife filed suits against Fuels, Inc. for damages arising out of the collision. In Fuels, Inc. v. Rutland, 123 Ga.App. 23, 179 S.E.2d 290, this court had for decision a review of a judgment in favor of Rutland against Fuels, Inc., which was affirmed.

Mrs. Rutland's case for loss of consortium then proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict for $500. Plaintiff's motion for new trial, as amended, was denied, and she appeals. Held:

1. A suit by a husband for personal injuries, and a suit by his wife for loss of consortium, are separate and distinct claims for relief, and where tried separately, as here, there could be no possible reason why the jury could not render inconsistent verdicts. See Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co. of Savannah, 61 Ga.App. 149, 6 S.E.2d 126; Russ Transport, Inc. v. Jones,104 Ga.App. 612, 122 S.E.2d 282. Compare Armstrong Furniture Co. v. Nickle,110 Ga.App. 686(4), 140 S.E.2d 72.

The court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for directed verdict as to liability based on the judgment and verdict against the defendant in favor of plaintiff's husband in Fuels, Inc. v. Rutland, 123 Ga.App. 23, 179 S.E.2d 290, supra. That case does not establish that liability has been adjudicated against the defendant here.

Moreover the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $500, which was a finding in favor of liability against the defendant, hence plaintiff's motion for directed verdict as to liability is now moot.

2. As to the general grounds, contending $500 is inadequate, we believe the verdict was proper. A husband is entitled to recover as damages for loss of services of his wife, both items that may be proven and items that are not subject to proof. In the case of Metropolitan St. R. Co. Johnson, 91 Ga. 466(3) and at pp. 471-472, 18 S.E. 816 and at p. 817, Justice Bleckley uses the very graphic and beautiful language in explaining this matter as follows:

'When the loss of a wife's services, resulting from a personal injury to her, is to be compensated for, she is not to be treated as an ordinary servant or as a mere hireling. Cooley on Torts, *226; Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Goodman, 62 Penn.St. 329. She sustains to her husband and his household a relation special and peculiar. Her place cannot be supplied; no other is capable of filling it. Some wives perform manual labor-others do not; yet the husbands of the latter no less than those of the former would certainly be entitled to compensation from wrong-doers for causing inability to perform service. The actual facts and circumstances of each case should guide the jury in estimating for themselves, in the light of their own observation and experience and to the satisfaction of their own consciences, the amount which would fairly and justly compensate the plaintiff for his loss. Certainly some elements of loss, such as manual labor, would be subject to estimation by witnesses; and, if evidence of this kind were produced, of course the jury should consider it together with the other facts. But what we hold distinctly is, that there need be no direct or express evidence of the value of the wife's services, either by the day, week, month, or any other period of time, or of any aggregate sum. The court committed no error in denying a new trial.'

Of course, here the suit was by the wife for loss of her husband's consortium, but the rule as to measure of damages would be the same as when the husband sues for loss of his wife's services, and as set forth in the above language quoted from Metropolitan St. R. Co., supra.

In the absence of bias and prejudice, the verdict will not be overturned on the ground of inadequacy. Hornsby v. Davis, 112 Ga.App. 419, 145 S.E.2d 633; Karlan v. Enloe, 129 Ga.App. 1, 4(3), 198 S.E.2d 331. See also Thomson Wholesale Gro. v. Merritt, 116 Ga.App. 764, 765(4), 159 S.E.2d 107. Bias or prejudice has not been shown to exist in this case requiring the grant of a new trial.

3. The declaration of an employee tending to admit negligence which would be imputable to his employer made to an investigating police officer 45 minutes after the collision is not a part of the res gestae. Nor is it admissible in evidence as an admission against interest inasmuch as the employee is not a party to the litigation. See Southern Railway Co. v. Allen, 118...