Opinion ID: 2161272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Recovery for Nursing and Domestic Services.

Text: The jury awarded appellant $1,500 for nursing and domestic services she required as a result of the accident. On respondents' motion after verdict, the trial court struck this answer and disallowed any recovery whatsoever. There is no question but that one who is injured and requires domestic and nursing services is entitled to recover for the same what is customarily charged for similar work [19] and to the extent that there is proof that establishes this item of damages to a reasonable certainty. On the record Mrs. Moritz did not sustain her burden of proof on this item of damages. There is absolutely no evidence of the customary charges for this kind of domestic work. Ann Bennett was not even called to testify, and Rose Kroll, who did testify, was never asked about the usual going rate for her services. Even assuming that the customary charge was proved, the evidence was still insufficient to show the amount of time actually put in by the two women. Ann Bennett worked for Mrs. Moritz during a seven-month period. When asked how many days Ann Bennett had worked, appellant replied Oh, I don't know. She worked so long, she was there different days. The most-concrete testimony of when she came to the house was at best confusing. Mrs. Moritz testified that she came sometimes every other day, sometimes three or four days a week, and sometimes couple hours every day, coming. Rose Kroll worked for Mrs. Moritz for about two years. Appellant said that she comes and goes. Rose Kroll, herself, claimed that she worked [o]ff and on . . . sometimes twice a week, three times a week, you know. Whenever she needed me, something she couldn't do. Thus there was a complete failure to give even a reasonable estimate of the amount of time the two women actually worked for Mrs. Moritz. The testimony regarding the specific tasks the two women performed for Mrs. Moritz was even more vague. There was conflict in the evidence as to how much each woman had been paid. No proof of a total payment was introduced. Rose Kroll said that she received six, five, seven dollars while Mrs. Moritz claimed she was paid ten or fifteen dollars a week. While appellant clearly was entitled to some compensation for the household services she required as a result of the accident, the record demonstrates that the damages were not proved with any reasonable certainty. When damages are susceptible of precise proof or of estimation by someone having knowledge, the proof must be adduced in order to sustain the burden of showing the expenses. [20] This appellant failed to do, and since the trial court is not permitted to determine the value of personal services, [21] there was no error in disallowing the jury award. The trial court's order gave appellant Moritz judgment for the reduced award unless within twenty days she elected to accept an option of a new trial on damages only. This is the reverse of the procedure recommended in Lucas v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co . [22] Mrs. Moritz should actually have been given the option to receive a new trial or take the reduced amount of the award. Accordingly, the judgment should be modified so as to permit the plaintiff an option to receive a new trial on all items of damages, including possible recovery for nursing and domestic services, or to take judgment including items of damage not involved on this appeal and also based on the $3,500 sum fixed by the trial court for personal injuries, which sum we have affirmed. By the Court. Judgment modified to give plaintiff an option to receive a new trial on all items of damages, or within twenty days of remittitur to take judgment in the sum fixed in the judgment from which this appeal was taken. Judgment, as modified, affirmed. No costs to be taxed on this appeal. GORDON, J. ( dissenting ). I would uphold the jury's verdict insofar as it evaluated the plaintiff's personal injuries at $6,500. There was evidence presented by the plaintiff and by two qualified medical witnesses. Their testimony contained proof of significant pain and disability and warranted the assessment as to damages made by the jury. The proof showed that as a result of the accident the plaintiff sustained the following: Backache, headache, dizziness, chest pain, leg pain, and aggravation of arthritis. She was hospitalized for a week. The trial court offered no explanation to justify its reduction in the verdict. I believe that the record in the instant case supports the jury's conclusion as to the plaintiff's damages for her personal injuries. The finding of the jury should not have been disturbed.