Story Case

Mrs. Helen Johnston, the wife of Henry Johnston, was seriously injured in a railway collision, caused by the carelessness of employees of the Eastern Island Railroad Company. Mrs. Johnston was in a hospital for three months and her husband was put to great expense and loss because of her injury. In an action brought by the husband and wife against the company, two thousand dollars was recovered for her personal injuries. Following this, Henry Johnston brought an action in his own name to recover the money expense he had incurred because of the accident, and also to recover because of his wife's society. The railroad company put in defense the fact that a judgment and recovery had already been secured for this injury. Johnston answered that this first recovery was for his wife, and now he was bringing an action to recover his own losses. Should the action be sustained?

Ruling Court Case No. 1. Smith Vs. The City Of St. Joseph, Volume 55 Mis-Souri Reports, Pagea56; Volume 17 American Reports, Page 660

This wa an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for the loss of the services of his wife, and necessary expenses for medicine, doctor's bills and nurse hire in caring for her during an injury which she sustained in consequence of the negligence of the defendant. The charge was that the injury to the plaintiff's wife was the result of falling down an embankment in one of the streets of the city of St. Joseph, which was negligently left in an open and dangerous condition.

The main defense interposed by the defendant was that Mr. and Mrs. Smith had recovered in a previous action on the same accident, and that such judgment was a bar to this action. In the former case the proceeding was in favor of the wife as the meritorious cause of action; that is, the recovery was for her personal injuries, in which the husband joined.

Decision: At common law the rule was well settled that for an injury to the person of a wife during coverture by battery, or to her character by slander, or any such injury, the wife must join with her husband in the suit. When, however, the injury is such that the husband receives a separate loss or damage, as when, in consequence of the battery, he has been deprived of her society, or has been put to expense, he may bring a separate action in his own name.

It was held that the recovery in the former action for the wife's personal injury was no bar to the husband's recovery of what he had lost or suffered as a consequence thereof.

Ruling Court Case No. 2. Lewis Vs. City Of Atlanta, Volume 77 Georgia Reports, Page 756; Volume 4 American State Reports, Page 108

This action was brought by the plaintiff against the city of Atlanta, for personal injuries by the plaintiff sustained in consequence of obstruction in the streets of the defendant city, caused by private parties, who had accumulated materials during the night without the accustomed signal to warn foot passengers of the danger therefrom. The plaintiff claimed, as his damages sustained, the expenses incurred for medical attention and nursing.

The defendant contended that the action could not be maintained because the plaintiff was a married woman and had not joined her husband in this action.

Decision: In the absence of statutory charges, the husband should have been joined in this action. For the injuries to the woman she sues in her own right, but the husband must be joined. For the expenses incurred in curing and caring for her, the husband sues, if he paid them.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

An injury to a married woman, at common law, gave rise to two causes of action. One primarily belonging to the husband; and one primarily belonging to the wife. When the injury was one primarily suffered by the wife, both must sue. This was because a married woman was said to have no standing in a Court of Law. But if the husband suffers a separate loss or injury, as for the loss of her services and society, or has incurred expenses in securing medical attention in the care of his wife, he may sue separately in his own name for such an injury; and the fact that he has previously brought and recovered in his own action is no reason why he may not thereafter join with the wife and recover for the injuries which he has sustained by virtue of relationship with his wife. And vice versa, the fact that a judgment had been secured by both husband and wife for her personal suffering, does not bar a recovery by the husband for expenses he has incurred, and for his own personal losses, in being deprived of the society of his wife. Johnston, of the Story Case, can recover in his action.