Sherwood v. Thomas

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff Elsie Snyder Sherwood, in a collision between an automobile driven by her and another automobile driven by the defendant. The action was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff. The court found that the automobile belonging to the plaintiffs was damaged in the sum of $93.90; and that the plaintiff Elsie Snyder Sherwood, by reason of her injuries, pain and suffering, loss of salary as a school-teacher and amounts expended for doctor bills, has been damaged in the sum of $1654. In addition, the court found, in finding numbered XII, that the plaintiff Lawrence Sherwood had been put to great expense and will continue to be subjected to great expense in procuring medical and surgical care and nursing for his wife, and that he will hereafter be put to great expense through the loss of her services by reason of which it was found that he was

[452]

damaged in the additional sum of $1,000. Upon these findings judgment was entered for $2,747.90, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The main point urged by appellant is that finding XII, above referred to, is not sustained by the evidence. Respondents support this finding only by the claim that it can be justified as an allowance on account of future loss of wages as a school-teacher by the respondent wife. Not only is there no evidence in the record to support such a claim, there being no evidence that the wife would be unable to teach in the future, but the finding in question does not purport to cover any such element of damages and the preceding finding, in which $1654 was allowed, does purport to fully cover that element of damages involving the activities of the wife as a school-teacher. The only thing covered by finding XII is past expense incurred by the husband for medical attention for the wife, and future expense for such medical attention and future expense caused by loss of her services. The past expense for medical attention was covered in the preceding finding and allowance therefor specifically included in the $1654 awarded. In relation to future expense for loss of services of the wife, the only evidence in the record is to the effect that the wife, at the time of the trial, was doing her own housework and there is no evidence that future expense was to be anticipated by reason of the loss of her services. As to future expense for medical attention, the only evidence in the record is that she would still require fifty more “adjustments” by the chiropractor who was treating her and that she had been paying $2 for each adjustment. At most, the evidence supports an allowance of only $100 for this item and the remaining allowance of $900 is without support in the record.