Court Opinion

ID: 9535126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:45:50.931042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:10.537320
License: Public Domain

Extended Opinion On Application For Rehearing
WRIGHT, Judge.
This matter has been presented to the Court on application for rehearing.
It is insisted in brief by appellee on application for rehearing that plaintiff, Mr. Harden, was entitled to compensation at the hands of the jury in his derivative suit for loss of services and consortium because it must necessarily follow from proof of hysteria and neurosis of the wife that the husband, sustained measurable loss as a result.
This reasoning forms a portion of the •basis for this Court’s opinion that the ver*305diets are not inconsistent. If damage to the husband in some measurable amount must necessarily follow proof of personal injury and right to recover by the wife, there would be no defense to the derivative action by the husband. It must follow that the husband would be entitled to the ahfirmative charge without hypothesis as to damages in some amount. This would be true in consolidated actions. It would then follow that right to recover, and damages in some amount, would be due in separate but nonconsolidated suits brought by the husband if it has been previously determined that the wife was entitled to recover for personal injuries. The matter of injury and right to damages would be res judicata and only the amount of damages would remain to be determined.
We do not believe this to be the law nor should it be the law in this State.
It is insisted by appellee that it necessarily follows finding of personal injury and damages to wife that the husband also suffered loss in value of the society of his wife, and the jury was bound to place a monetary value on such loss. Appellee states as a matter of fact the following “Any man who has ever had a neurotic wife knows that the husband suffers more than the wife.” We know not from whence counsel for appellee drew this statement of fact. We assume it is not from personal knowledge. This Court will not concede this as a matter entitled to judicial notice. Thus we must find it is a mere conclusion with which members of the jury did not concur and would not speculate. We know that a jury is not required to speculate as to damages. They were not charged to do so by the trial court but were charged as follows:
“ * * * Now, if you find that Mrs. Harden is entitled to an award of damages in her case for personal injury as distinguished from damages only to the automobile, and you find that such personal injuries 'to Mrs. Harden caused Mr. Harden to sustain injuries and damages of the kind alleged by him in his complaint, then, Mr. Harden in his case would be entitled to a verdict in such a sum as would reasonably compensate him for the injuries and expenditures so sustained or made by him. * * * ”
This was a correct charge. The question of whether Mr. Harden suffered compensable damages as a result of his wife’s injuries was properly left for the jury. Cook v. Sweatt, 282 Ala. 177, 209 So.2d 891.
We do not consider it “amazing”, as stated by appellee, that we commented in our original opinion that the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence as to the charge of the psychiatrist when it was not shown to be a reasonable one. We cannot agree that a jury can determine from its own knowledge the reasonableness of a psychiatrist’s charge. In this case it was stated to be $65.00. In the next it could very possibly be $6500.00. Foodtown Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 282 Ala. 477, 213 So.2d 211.
We are chagrined at the amazement of appellee, but we must deny his. application for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.