Opinion
April 30, 1937.
July 15, 1937.
Practice — Verdict — Action by husband and wife — Trespass — Personal injuries — Medical expenses — Verdict for defendant and against wife plaintiff — Verdict in favor of husband plaintiff and against defendant — Judgment for defendant n.o.v.
In an action in trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife plaintiff resulting from the alleged negligence of defendant, and to reimburse the husband plaintiff for the monies paid by him for medical services rendered the wife plaintiff, the rights of the respective plaintiffs to verdicts and judgments against the defendant depended on a finding by the jury that the wife plaintiff had been injured by the negligence of defendant; and, where the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant and against the wife plaintiff, but also rendered a verdict in favor of the husband for the amount of the medical expenses paid by him, and the trial court was of the opinion that the evidence justified the verdict in favor of the defendant as against the wife, the court properly set aside the verdict in favor of the husband and entered judgment n.o.v. in favor of the defendant.
Appeals, Nos. 169 and 170, April T., 1937, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1934, No. 2965, in case of Mercedes E. Schmidt and John A. Schmidt, her husband, and John A. Schmidt, in his own right, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, JAMES and RHODES, JJ. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before SHERWOOD, J., specially presiding.
Verdict for defendant and against wife plaintiff; verdict for husband plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $228. Judgment entered for defendant n.o.v. Plaintiffs appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was judgment n.o.v.
Charles F. Dean, for appellants.
James R. Orr and J.R. McNary, for appellee, were not heard.
Argued April 30, 1937.
The rights of the respective plaintiffs, wife and husband, to verdicts and judgments against the defendant depended on a finding by the jury that the wife plaintiff had been injured by the negligence of defendant's employees. Unless on this main issue the verdict was in the wife's favor, no verdict in favor of the husband could stand, for the defendant could not be required to reimburse the husband for his wife's medical bills, etc., unless it had negligently caused the injuries requiring such treatment and expense.
The case was fairly submitted to the jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, as respects the wife's claim, thus finding that it had not been guilty of negligence; and the evidence fully supported the verdict. But it also rendered a verdict in favor of the husband for the moneys paid by him for medical services rendered the wife plaintiff. The court set aside the verdict in favor of the husband and entered judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the defendant. It could not rightly do otherwise, unless it granted a new trial. Being of opinion that the evidence justified the verdict in favor of the defendant as against the wife, the court's action on the husband's verdict necessarily followed. We find no abuse of discretion in the action of the court below in refusing a new trial nor error in entering judgment non obstante veredicto for the defendant on the husband's claim.
Judgment affirmed.