Skollingsberg v. Brookover, No. 12035

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CROCKETT; CALLISTER
• Citation: 484 P.2d 1177,26 Utah 2d 45
• Docket Number: No. 12035
• Decision Date: 10 May 1971
• Parties: d 45 Dina SKOLLINGSBERG, Guardian Ad Litem for Gunnar Skollingsberg, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Paul BROOKOVER and General Electric Company, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 1177

484 P.2d 1177 26 Utah 2d 45 Dina SKOLLINGSBERG, Guardian Ad Litem for Gunnar
Skollingsberg, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Paul BROOKOVER and General Electric Company, a corporation,
Defendants and Appellants. No. 12035. Supreme Court of Utah. May 10, 1971.

[26 UTAH2D 46] Harold G. Christensen and Raymond M. Berry, of Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Page 1178

[26 UTAH2D 47] Lorin N. Pace, Walter P. Faber, Jr., Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

CROCKETT, Justice:

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict and judgment thereon awarding $18,000 general and $6,811 special damages to the plaintiff, Dina Skollingsberg, mother and guardian ad litem for her 16-year-old son, Gunnar, for a broken leg and other injuries he suffered in a collision between his motorcycle and a truck of defendant General Electric driven by defendant Paul Brookover; and for a subsequent refracturing of the some leg five months later by a fall on his home stairway.

The facts concerning the original collision and injuries are not in contest on this appeal. The incident occurred on July 25, 1965. Gunnar was motorcycling south on 8th East at about 3100 South in Salt Lake City; Paul Brookover was driving the defendant's truck northward. He made a turn to his left and toward the west, when the vehicles collided. Gunnar suffered numerous injuries the permanent aspects of which were the breaking of his leg (now left shorter than the other) and a crippling deprivation of use in his left hand because of injuries to its nerves and tendons. The verdict was for $18,000 general damages, $4,291 medical and hospital expenses, and $2,520 for loss of earnings.

Defendants contend that the action was brought by the wrong party plaintiff, Gunnar's mother instead of his father; ¹ and particularly that the awards for special damages of medical expenses and loss of earnings could not properly beawarded to the plaintiff because they belonged to his father.

The general rule is that such an action should be brought by the father. ² But as will appear from our discussion herein, we see no reason why that rule should apply with such rigidity in this case as to provide protection to those the jury has found responsible for causing injuries to the plaintiff, nor to prevent his recovery of damages they have found justly due him. In approaching that problem there are certain thoughts to be borne in mind. The purpose and the justification for rules is to facilitate procedure and to effectuate justice. They are not intended to exist as mere abstractions in a vacuum, and should not be applied in circumstances where there is no basis in reason or justice for doing so. Much less so when the real effect[26 UTAH2D 48] would be to obstruct or to defeat the ends of justice. Moreover, a party ordinarily has no standing to challenge noncompliance with a rule unless he is in some manner adversely affected thereby.

One of the primary reasons why it has been thought that the father is the proper party to bring such an action is that historically it has been the father's responsibility to provide the necessities for the family including their medical expenses, and that for this reason he was entitled to recover for such expenses and for earnings due the children as 'the real party in interest.' ³ Under our law it is not true that this responsibility for support rests only upon the father. It is also upon the mother. ⁴ Thus the reason for the idea that the right to bring such an action belongs to the father is not so persuasive as formerly. Insofar as the defendants are concerned, what they are entitled to is the assurance that if they meet and respond to this suit, they shall not be harassed by further litigation. Respected authorities with which we are in...