Court Opinion

ID: 9832472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:56:25.59535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.235651
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing appellee calls our attention to the case of Gainesville, H. & W. Ry. Co. et al. v. Lacy, 86 Tex. 244, 24 S. W. 269, by our Supreme Court. In reviewing the question we have concluded that we were in error in holding that, in the absence of direct evidence of the money value of Mrs. Sutherland’s services, it was error to submit to the jury to find the value of her services. We have concluded the better rule is that Mrs. Sutherland’s right to recover compensation for her decreased capacity to care for and to minister to the needs of herself and her family is not limited nor necessarily measured by the standard of value of the pecuniary return of wage or profit, but such value, not being capable of ascertainment under the ordinary rules, is to be assessed by the jury in the sound discretion of its members and in the light of their experience in their everyday affairs. In addition to the above case refer to Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Perkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 683, in which Judge Gallagher of the Waco court, in a similar case, so holds, and refers to a number of cases announcing a similar holding. As Judge Brown says in the Lacy Case, supra, if the wife were to engage in work for hire, or in an independent business for gain, the same rule would apply as to a man as to such value of her services.
Other grounds of error not discussed in the original opinion have been considered and we think do not present reversible error.
Our former opinion reversing and remanding the case is set aside, and it is here ordered that the case is affirmed.
Affirmed.