State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Village of Isle, s. 38860 and 38861

• Decision Date: 10 May 1963
• Docket Number: Nos. 38860 and 38861,s. 38860 and 38861
• Citation: 265 Minn. 360,122 N.W.2d 36
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF ISLE, Appellant.

Page 36

122 N.W.2d 36

265 Minn. 360

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF ISLE, Appellant.

Nos. 38860 and 38861.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 10, 1963.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under Minn.St. 340.95 (Civil Damage Act) the insurer of an intoxicated driver has no greater right against the vendor whose illegal sale of intoxicants caused the intoxication of such driver than does the latter. Since voluntary intoxication of driver would constitute bar to any cause of action on his part against such vendor, his insurer would likewise have no such cause of action. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Williams, Minn., 121 N.W.2d 580, filed herewith.

2. Under § 340.95 verdict of $10,000 in favor of wife for injury to her 'means of support' due to husband's injuries proximately caused by his intoxication, against defendant guilty of illegal sale of intoxicants to husband, Held sustained where evidence established that prior to his injuries husband had made substantial contributions to wife's support and that as a result of such injuries his contributions therefor had terminated in all respects.

3. Where evidence established that medical expenses of husband were paid for by wife from funds derived from sale of farm homestead jointly owned by her and husband, to which she otherwise might have looked as means of support, jury might properly consider such payments in evaluating her loss in this respect.

4. Under § 340.95 wife's loss of means of support has reference to damage to her mode of living in degree suitable to her station in life. This would properly include impairment of any amounts reasonably requisite to housing, food, clothing, health, recreation, vacation, and travel expenses, and court's instructions to such effect Held to have properly encompassed factors which jury might consider in arriving at a fair evaluation of such loss.

5. Where jury returned verdict in wife's favor in amount of $6,200 for injury to her person under § 340.95; and where evidence disclosed that she had suffered no physical injuries or disabilities because of accident, but claimed husband's injuries had made her 'nervous and worried all the time,' Held such evidence incompetent to sustain such verdict.

6. In Minnesota (and most jurisdictions) under common-law principles right of recovery for loss of consortium is limited to husband notwithstanding so-called Married Women's Act, Minn.St. c. 519. Provision in § 340.95 which authorizes 'wife' to recover for injury to 'her person' would not authorize her recovery for loss of consortium denied under common-law doctrines. Accordingly, there is nothing in this claim of damages which would sustain award of $6,200 to plaintiff for 'injury to her person.'

Schermer & Gensler, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Spellacy, Spellacy, Lano & Anderson, Marble, for respondent.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

These actions which were tried together involve construction of Minn.St. 340.95, the Civil Damage Act.

In the first action, plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company of Bloomington, Illinois, hereafter referred to as State Farm Mutual, as insurer in an automobile liability insurance policy covering an automobile owned by L. Victor Peterson, named as the insured in such policy, seeks reimbursement from defendant, village of Isle, a municipal corporation, as owner of a municipal liquor store, for sums paid out in provident settlement of claims arising under such policy. Such claims resulted from an automobile accident which occurred February 6, 1961, and involved the insured as driver of the described automobile. It is not disputed that the proximate cause of the accident was the intoxication of the insured and that such intoxication was induced by defendant's illegal sale of intoxicants to him. In this action the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor in the sum of $13,247 covering the claims settled by it.

In the second action, Signe Peterson, plaintiff and wife of the insured, seeks recovery from defendant village for damages arising out of the same accident. Her claims are based upon the resulting loss of her means of support; and upon damages to her person in the form of mental suffering, shock, loss of companionship, and loss of consortium, all occasioned by the injuries which were sustained by her husband in the accident. The jury returned a verdict in her favor in the sum of $10,000 for injury to her means of support and $6,200 for injury to her person.

It was stipulated that plaintiff had expended $1,737.57 from proceeds received on the sale of the farm homestead owned jointly by plaintiff and her husband in payment of his hospital, medical, ambulance, and nursing expenses arising out of the accident. Defendant objected to the relevancy thereof as a valid item of plaintiff's damages, and at the close of the testimony made the following motion:

'* * * we move the Court to withdraw from the jury any consideration of damage other than the loss of means of support and * * * to exclude any consideration of the amount paid for medical bills of L. Victor Peterson and any consideration of the suffering or mental anguish and nervousness and worry which Mrs. Peterson claims to have sustained.'

In its charge to the jury, the court stated:

'By means of support we mean that which furnishes a livelihood, a source or means of living, subsistence, sustenance or living. * * * the term includes all such means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort suitable and becoming to his station in life. It is said to include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expense or other proper cognate purposes.

'* * * if you find that by reason of the accident in question he (L. Victor Peterson) has sustained a permanent injury, you will determine as to what extent this permanent injury, if any, which he sustained in the accident have with reasonable certainty affected his future ability to provide such means of support for the plaintiff Signe Peterson.

'In considering the question as to damages * * * due the plaintiff Signe Peterson for and on account of personal injury, the only matter which you may consider in that connection is the mental anguish which you may find with reasonable certainty that she has suffered as a proximate result of the accident in question and which with reasonable certainty she will suffer in the future.'

In such instructions the court made no reference to either plaintiff's loss of consortium or to the items of medical and like expenses paid by her. At the close of the instructions, defendant objected as follows:

'* * * the defendant excepts to the Court's submitting to the jury the question of damage to the person or injury to the person of Signe Peterson, and also excepts to the instruction permitting the jury to return as part of the loss of means of support the sum of $1,737.57 which is the amount of hospital, medical, ambulance and nursing bills introduced.

'Defendant * * * objects to such part of the instruction as permits loss of support to include pecuniary injury, and * * * to that portion of the instruction which states, 'Means of support includes all of the items as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort suitable and becoming to one's station in life, including housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation and travel expense,' in that the instruction should be limited to actual support in terms of money contributions referable to those things necessary for livelihood.'

Defendant's subsequent motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial in the State Farm Mutual case and for a new trial in the Signe Peterson case were denied. The present appeals are from the orders denying such motions. In memoranda attached to the orders, the trial court stated:

(In the State Farm Mutual Case)

'The statute provides that 'every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person who is injured in person or property, or means of support, by any intoxicated person, or by the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his own name, against any person who by illegally selling, bartering or giving intoxicating liquors, caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages sustained.'

'The language used by the Legislature is clear and unambiguous and is clearly intended * * * to include the plaintiff. * * * If the Legislature had not wanted Other persons included * * * it would not have added 'other persons.'

'The plaintiff is clearly a person according to the legislative intent. It is an artificial person, the same as an employer could be an artificial person. When it paid out money on its liability policy, it was damaged under any common sense interpretation of the word damaged.'

(In the Signe Peterson Case)

'Here the plaintiff did not suffer such physically disabling injuries, but she did suffer injury to her person in the form of mental anguish. To a good wife who seriously considers her marital status and obligations, the physical injuries of her husband and the resulting effects upon both himself and herself are bound to produce mental anguish which causes far more actual pain and suffering to her than any physical injury to her could possibly produce. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that it is amply justified under the evidence in this case in allowing the jury verdict for mental anguish as physical injury to stand. The nervous system of a human is part of his person, and mental anguish is accordingly an injury to such person's person.

'The plaintiff * * * permitted joint funds which otherwise would have been applicable to her support, to be paid upon bills for the care of the injuries of her husband. Such amounts very properly should have been considered by the jury in determining the damages to her means of support.'

It is the contention of defendant in the State Farm...