Title: Janke v. Janke

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

195 N.W.2d 185 (1972) Alice M. JANKE, Respondent, v. Melvin F. JANKE, Appellant. No. 43060. Supreme Court of Minnesota. February 18, 1972. Winter, Lundquist, Sherwood & Athens, Wheaton, for appellant. Richard S. Roberts, Morris, Swanson Brothers, Elbow Lake, for respondent. Heard and considered en banc. KNUTSON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The case arises out of an automobile accident which occurred when plaintiff was riding as a passenger in her husband's car. She sued her husband to recover for her personal injuries and medical expenses. The case was submitted to the jury on a special verdict in which the jury found defendant's negligence was the direct cause of plaintiff's injuries and that she was entitled to $2,500 for her injuries and $2,500 for her medical expenses. The case has been submitted here on the following stipulation of facts, approved by the trial court, in lieu of a reporter's record pursuant to Rule 110.04, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure: The only question presented here is whether a wife in a suit against her husband for personal injuries caused by his negligence may recover medical expenses incurred in treating the wife. The question becomes important since we abrogated the interspousal immunity between husband and wife in Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 173 N.W.2d 416 (1969), thereby giving one spouse a right to sue the other for injuries resulting from tort. If in such a case the wife cannot recover her medical expenses in a suit against her husband, they cannot be recovered at all since the husband is in no position to recover such expenses if they are caused by his own tort. The question of a wife's right to recover medical expenses incurred in treating injuries to herself was exhaustively examined in Boland v. Morrill, 275 Minn. 496, 148 N.W.2d 143 (1967), where many of the cases on this subject are collected. It would serve no useful purpose to reexamine the authorities or to repeat what we there said. Boland was decided prior to Beaudette. In Boland we said (275 Minn. 498, 148 N.W.2d 145): Essentially, the question now is whether we should adopt a different rule since Beaudette abrogated the interspousal immunity. We come to the conclusion that we should adhere to Boland. Under that decision, because he is liable for their payment, the exclusive right to recover medical expenses incurred in treating the wife lies with the husband unless it is shown that the wife has paid such expenses or personally assumed liability for them. Examples of cases where the wife has been permitted to recover for her medical expenses are Fink v. Baer, 180 Minn. 433, 230 N.W. 888 (1930), where the wife was permitted to recover in a case where the husband had died and she had assumed liability for and paid her medical expenses. In Paulos v. Koelsch, 195 Minn. 603, 263 N.W. 913 (1935), we permitted the wife to recover where she had not lived with her husband or been supported by him for over 5 years. In this case, there was no evidence that the wife had either paid her medical expenses or assumed liability for them. As a matter of fact, the stipulation of the parties negates any such finding. It has been mentioned that a married woman is liable for articles of necessity under Minn.St. 519.05, but this statute does not apply to medical expenses. Boland v. Morrill, supra. It follows that it was error for the trial court to permit the jury to find for plaintiff in recovering her medical expenses on the basis of the record now before us. Consequently, the trial court must be reversed in so far as medical expenses are concerned. Reversed. TODD, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.