Story Case

Truman Oldfield and his wife were both seriously injured in a railroad wreck, while riding on a railroad train of the Lake Western Company. The injuries were sustained in a collision caused by the negligence of the company's employees. Oldfield was confined to a hospital for two weeks, and his wife was there for four weeks. Oldfield first brought an action for his own personal injury and losses therefrom, recovering a judgment of one thousand dollars. Then he brought suit with his wife to recover the losses personal to herself and recovered three thousand dollars; this including her medical expenses. Following this he brought suit to recover his own losses due to loss of his wife's society and the personal expense he was put to in the loss of time in attending his wife. The railroad company plead that he had already secured two judgments and the payments thereon, and should not be permitted to recover more. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Shaglund Vs. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., Volume 45 Minnesota Reports, Page 330; Volume 11 Lawyers' Reports, Annotated, Page 222; Volume 22 American State Reports, Page 733

The plaintiff and his wife, while riding on one of the cars of the defendant company, were both at the same time injured in the same accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action and recovered the personal injuries which he himself suffered. He then brought this action, alleging that the negligence of the defendant was the cause of the injury to his wife in consequence of which he lost her services and society and was put to expense for securing medical attention for her. The defendant relied upon the plaintiff's former recovery as a bar to the present action.

Decision: The fact that the plaintiff heretofore recovered of this defendant damages for his own personal injuries has nothing to do with his right to recover damages to his marital relation. The husband is entitled to the services and society of his wife, and if, through the negligence of another, he is deprived of them, he is entitled to receive damages therefor. Moreover, he is under a duty to use due care in securing medical attention in his efforts to cure his wife, and such may also be recovered from the defendant. This right is not connected with or related to his right to recover damages for his own injuries, and therefore the former recovery is no bar to the present action.

It was held that the plaintiff could recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The relation between husband and wife is a very close and sacred one; but it is not only a sacred and close relation, but it is also a valuable one from a pecuniary standpoint; the wife is her husband's helpmate; she performs many duties; she assists him in many capacities. From this it follows that in case the wife is injured, the husband suffers as well as the wife; he loses her services, her society, her companionship. Not only this, but he must incur expenses in securing medical attention and in having her properly cared for. If, therefore, the wife is injured through the negligence of a third person, the husband is entitled to sue such person for the damages he suffers. This is a right which is separate and distinct from the right of the wife to recover for her physical pain and suffering from the injury. And even where the husband, suing with the wife, as he is compelled to do at common law, has recovered for the pain and suffering of his wife, he may thereafter bring an action for the damages which the injury has caused to the marital relation. In the Story Case, therefore, Oldfield sets up a distinct cause of action from those he had recovered judgments on previously, and the plea of the railroad company is not good.