Ziegler v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 49813,49813 |
| Citation | 251 Iowa 714,102 N.W.2d 152 |
| Parties | Beverly ZIEGLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Bradshaw & Crawford, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Burnquist, Helsell, Burnquist & Kersten, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
The question for decision is whether a wife is entitled to recover for loss of consortium when her husband is negligently injured arising out of and in the course of his employment while covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, I.C.A. § 85.1 et seq.
Plaintiff's amended and substituted petition alleges the employment of her husband by defendant; his injury in the course of his employment on May 16, 1956; he returned to work and the injury was aggravated May 27, 1957; the Industrial Commissioner found the injury of May 27, 1957, to be an aggravation of the first injuries; defendant was negligent in failing to property train the husband and in placing him on heavy work with knowledge of his condition; such was the proximate cause of her injuries and damage; her freedom from contributory negligence, but not that of her husband; and that she is deprived of a healthy husband, the company, support, advice, and other happiness and benefits she would have received from him.
Plaintiff's petition as filed August 8, 1958, referred only to the injury of May 16, 1956, and relied on acts of negligence on such date. She amended to allege the aggravation of May 27, 1957. The trial court sustained a motion to dismiss because the action was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Law and the statute of limitations as not being brought within two years after the injury. Section 614.1, Code of Iowa 1958, I.C.A. Plaintiff filed her amended and substituted petition as above and the trial court again dismissed the same as being barred by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law and because plaintiff did not allege her husband's freedom from contributory negligence. We agree with the result reached.
I. In Acuff v. Schmit, 248 Iowa 272, 78 N.W.2d 480, we held a wife had the right to recover for loss of consortium negligently caused, the same as a husband. At common law the husband had this right as well as his right to recover for other consequential damages, loss of his wife's services and expenses of a cure, suffered by him by reason of her negligent injury. Under section 613.11, Code of Iowa 1958, I.C.A., the right to sue for the loss of her services and expenses has been given the wife. Acuff v. Schmit, supra; Lane v. Steiniger, 174 Iowa 317, 156 N.W. 375; Woodard v. City of Des Moines, 182 Iowa 1102, 165 N.W. 313; Bohanan v. Maxwell, 190 Iowa 1308, 1320, 181 N.W. 683; and 14 A.L.R. 1004.
These rights of recovery by the husband were all based upon the wife's right to recover for her direct injuries. Where the defendant is not guilty of a tort which would give a right of action to the wife the husband cannot maintain an action for consequential damages. 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife, § 401 c, p. 895; 27 Am.Jur. p. 108, Husband and Wife, § 506; Shaw v. Boston American League Baseball Co., 325 Mass. 419, 90 N.E.2d 840; Thibeault v. Poole, 283 Mass. 480, 486-487, 186 N.E. 632; Peters v. Bodin, 242 Minn. 489, 65 N.W.2d 917; and Naphtali v. Lafazan, 7 Misc.2d 1057, 165 N.Y.S.2d 395, 403.
In 41 C.J.S., supra, the rule is stated: 'Ordinarily the husband is not entitled to consequential damages for injuries to his wife where defendant is not guilty of a tort which would give a right of action to the wife.'
And in 27 Am.Jur., supra, as follows: 'Generally, however, a cause of action for loss of consortium of the wife does not exist in the husband, unless the defendant would have been liable directly to the wife for the injury to her occasioning the consequential loss to the husband.'
In Peters v. Bodin, supra [242 Minn. 489, 65 N.W.2d 922], is this statement: 'This instruction is in accord with the established rule that a husband's right to special damages for loss of his wife's services, or for medical and hosital expenses arising out of her injuries is derivative only, so that if she has no valid claim for such injuries, he is likewise without right to recover for such special damages.' Citing cases.
In Shaw v. Boston American League Baseball Co., supra [325 Mass. 419, 90 N.E.2d 843], where plaintiffs were wife and husband, the wife claiming direct damages and the husband consequential damages, the court in passing on a directed verdict,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casey v. Manson Const. & Engineering Co.
...510, 136 S.E.2d 425 (1964); Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill.2d 406, 170 N.E.2d 881, 86 A.L.R.2d 1184 (1960); Ziegler v. United States Gypsum Co., Inc., 251 Iowa 714, 102 N.W.2d 152 (1960); Montgomery v. Stephan, 359 Mich. 33, 101 N.W.2d 227 (1960); Novack v. Kansas City Transit, Inc., 365 S.W.2d 5......
-
Handeland v. Brown
...328, 60 N.W. 653 (1894). We once gave at least tentative recognition to the derivative action rationale. See Ziegler v. United States Gypsum Co., 251 Iowa 714, 102 N.W.2d 152 (1960); see also Guinn v. Millard Truck Lines, Inc., 257 Iowa 671, 680--682, 134 N.W.2d 549, 555--557 (1965). But se......
-
1997 -NMSC- 3, Archer v. Roadrunner Trucking Inc.
...spouse. The damages sought in a loss-of-consortium action are consequential or special damages. See Ziegler v. United States Gypsum Co., 251 Iowa 714, 102 N.W.2d 152, 153 (1960) (referring to loss of consortium as consequential damages); Peters v. Bodin, 242 Minn. 489, 65 N.W.2d 917, 922 (1......
-
Noble v. Monsanto Co.
...is not liable for direct claims by one spouse, the loss of consortium claim cannot be maintained. Ziegler v. United States Gypsum Co., 251 Iowa 714, 102 N.W.2d 152, 153 (1960); Richards v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 226 F.Supp. 812, 814 (S.D.Iowa 1964). Noble failed to state ......