, 1892-05-02
A CASE REVERSED.
Supreme Court Passes On a King
County Appeal.
An Action By Husband and Wife
for Damages Caused by Alleged
Negligence oln a street. Railway.

An Action NV Husband and wife
for Damages Caused by Alleged
Negligence oEl a street Railway.
Marie Hawkins ct al, respondents, vs..
Front street Gable Railway company,
appellant. No. 329.
This was an action by husband and wife
for damages resulting from injuries IN
hicted upon the wife through the negligent
acts Of the appellants conductor and grip
man, while she was a passenger on It's street
car. She occupied an outside seat on the
dummy at the side and near the front,
at a certain place the railway track was
blocked by a grocer's delivery wagon, the
driver of which refused to move out of the
way until the dummy" came to stop
Wifhin. a foot or two of the rear end of the
wagon After the gripman had called up
on the wagon driver to move on, the con-
ductor told the gripman to move the car
up, and hit or push the wagon. The grip
man obeyed the direction, and struck the
wagon a light blow, when the driver of the
wagon whipped up his horse and drove
down the street, still occupying the rail
way track, the dummy" following close
after. and perhapy still pushing the wagon9
They proceeded thus for about three hmm
dred feet when suddenly the driver turned
his horse sharply to one side for the puT-
pose of entering cross-street, and the
/ fQJIl1llYsf COnlllR 1ullu6ulhbGly DGulaQ
crashed into the rear end OF the wagon, and
upset and broke it. Some portion of the
wagon, said to be part of broken wheel,
fell upon Mrs. Hawkins, and injured her.
The complaint contained allegations of
damages as follows:
''Whereby and by reason OF which said
plaintiffs (Mrs. HaWkins'l body was
greatly bruised and injured causing this.
plaintiff to suffer great pain of body and
anguish of mind, and was by reason there
Of confined to her bed under the care Of a
physician, and prevented from attending
to her household duties as also her busi-
ness and employment, to wit: That Of
bath tender, for a long space of time, to
wit Ten days and thus prevented from
earning her salary Of two dollars per day,
and this plaintiff the said George HaW-
kins, was deprived Of the society, services,
companiOnship and solaee OF his said wife,
and was compelled to and did incur large
expense and outlay, both Of time and
money, in attending to and curing his said
wife as aforesaid, whereby he was damaged
in large sum, to wit: One thousand dol
lars.
That at the time, to-wit. The 26th day
of May, 1890, when the said defendant cor
poration, by its carelessness and neglect as
aforesaid, caused the injury aforesaid; the
plaintiff, Marie Hawkins, was encientes
and that the injury to her body as afore-
said, caused by the collision aforesaid, was
Of such a severe character that it caused
the death of the child with which the said
plaintiff was then and there enciente as
aforesaid, and that since the filing of the
second amended complaint and the am
swer thereto herein, to wit: On October
5th, 1890, the plaintiff, Marie Hawkins,
lost the said child and by reason whereof
the said Marie Hawkins suffered great
pain in body and distress of mind in Civ
ing birth to the said child dead, and in the
r+1rF& ~, oI,i1
were compelled to and did expend large
sums Of money in curing the said Marie
Hawkins, and suffered other damages
therein"
The case was commenced within few
days after the injury occurred, and origi-
nally charged no damage accrulng Later
than ten days from May 26th, but subse-
quent to October 5th the last paragraph
was added as a supplemental complaint.
The first error complained of relates to
the husbands alleged damage. The de-
fendant requested the court to charge that
the fact that the husband was Joined as a
plaintiff in the action gsYe him no right to
recover any damages o9 his own account,
for loss or injury sustained by him. This
request was refused, and the court charged
instead:
IF the Jury find for the plaintiffs. and if
they find that by reason of the injuries of
the wife, Marie Hawkins, the husband,
nary benefit of his wife's services, then the
jury may, in computing the damages, take
into consideration a fair compensation Of
such loss caused by the wife's injuries"
At common law when wife was injured
through the tort of third person, the in
jury and the right Of action were hers, but
She could not sue unless her husband, if
living, Joined her as plaintiff. The recoy-
cry in that case was the pecuniary meas
ure Of her own injury and suffering in body
and mind. But there was another element
of damage which could be recovered only
by her husband suing alone in a separate
action, viz: his loss of her services and his
outlay in restoring her to health. In this
case the complaint seems to have been
based upon the idea that he could also
recover for the society, companionship and
solace of his wife, but we do not under
stand these to be recoverable injuries, As
matter of fact, unless death ensues the
husband is not deprived of either, al
though his enjoyment of them may be
lessened by the knowledge of his wife's
suffering. They are of those sentimental,
intangible injuries which the law cannot
measure. Even in case Of death they are
not elements of damage. 2Thompson 2 on
negligence, 1889 Commissioners of HaY-
ard CO. VS.. Legg, 93 Ind. 523.
TCOntinued TomorrO