Court Opinion

ID: 9695708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:27:59.826997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:30.736912
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring:
Appellant-husband contends that because the verdict of the jury was in excess of the amount of damage to his *262truck, the jury intended to compensate him for the injury to his wife as well as the damage to his vehicle. He argues that the verdict is, therefore, inconsistent because the jury did not return a verdict for his appellant-wife.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed because the jury’s verdict was not inconsistent.
Appellant-wife was involved in a car accident with appellee. She and her husband sued to recover their damages resulting from the accident.
Appellant-husband sought recovery for (1) his wife’s medical expenses plus the loss of consortium and (2) damage to his truck. Appellant-husband admits that the first claim for damages is a derivative one based upon his wife’s cause of action. Because it is a derivative claim, the contributory negligence of the wife bars the husband from the recovery of damages consequential to the injuries of the wife. Riesberg v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, 407 Pa. 434, 180 A.2d 575 (1962). If the wife is not entitled to recover damages from the appellee for her injuries it follows that the appellee will not be liable to the husband for his expenses growing out of that injury. Riesberg, supra. Thus, appellant-husband cannot recover for his wife’s medical expenses or consortium if the jury finds that she was negligent.
The appellant-husband’s second claim is for damage to his truck. This is not a derivative claim and he could recover if the jury found appellee negligent, regardless of appellant-wife’s contributory negligence. The wife’s negligence is not imputable to her husband, the owner of the truck who was not present therein, unless she was engaged upon the owner’s business. Toenges v. Schleihauf, 368 Pa. 247, 82 A.2d 15 (1951); Rago v. Nelson, 194 Pa.Super. 317, 166 A.2d 88 (1961). It is clear that “no relation of master and servant or principal and agent as between husband and wife arises merely by reason of their marital status . . .” Toenges supra 368 *263Pa. at 252-253, 82 A.2d at 18. In the instant case, the appellant-wife was driving the truck on her own business at the time of the accident. Therefore, her contributory negligence cannot be imputed to her husband in his action to recover damages for his truck.
The trial court, in its charge to the jury, stated that there were three possible findings that could be made. “(1) if it was concluded that there was no negligence on the part of defendant, the verdict should be for defendant. (2) if it was concluded that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff-wife was also negligent, the verdict should be for plaintiff-husband. (3) if it was concluded that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff-wife was not negligent, the verdict should be for husband and wife separately.” The jury returned a verdict solely for appellant-husband for a sum in excess of the stipulated amount of damages to the truck. Upon appellees’ motion, the lower court molded the verdict and appellant-husband recovered only the amount of stipulated, non-derivative damages. The jury verdict only for appellant-husband followed directly from the charge of the lower court. After finding both appellee and appellant-wife negligent, the jury returned a verdict for appellant-husband. The fact that the jury returned a verdict in excess of the amount of damage to the truck, does not render it inconsistent. The verdict of the jury clearly indicates that the appellant-husband was the only person to recover. Because the wife was contributorily negligent, the only basis of recovery for the husband was the damage to his truck.
In Longberry v. Paul, 205 Pa.Super. 435, 211 A.2d 107 (1965), the plaintiff-husband, who was the owner but not a passenger in the automobile operated by his wife, recovered damages for loss of consortium and damage to his car. Because the jury found that both the plaintiff-wife and the defendant were negligent, the lower court molded the verdict by eliminating the plaintiff-husband’s *264recovery for loss of consortium. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s act of molding the verdict because the husband could not recover for his derivative claim when the jury had denied recovery to his wife due to her contributory negligence. Therefore, in the instant case, the appellant-husband is precluded from recovery for the loss of consortium because the jury’s verdict was consistent with a finding of negligence on the part of appellant-wife. However, he can recover for his non-derivative claim due to the verdict in his favor.
The jury verdict herein was excessive but, it was not inconsistent. Longberry, supra. The order of the lower court is affirmed.