
    PETER VAN HOUSE v. CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND OTHERS.
    
    February 23, 1923.
    No. 23,239.
    Charge as to husband’s expense incurred because of injury to wife, not prejudicial.
    1. Evidence of the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by a husband in taking his wife to a physician for examination and medical advice wa>s received without objection. In instructing the jury the court referred to it as an item of expense incurred by the husband who 'brought an action to recover damages for loss of his wife’s services and expenses occasioned by her personal injuries due to defendants’ negligence. Held there was no prejudicial error in the instruction.
    Husband may recover value of his services in nursing his wife.
    2. A husband may recover the reasonable value of his own services in nursing his wife. There was sufficient proof of their value to entitle him to a recovery.
    Damages not excessive.
    3. The damages awarded are not excessive.
    Action in the district court for Beltrami county to recover $3,000 for the loss of services and companionship of plaintiff’s wife and for expenses incurred by attendance upon her. The case was tried before Wright, J., who when plaintiff rested denied the motion of Canadian Northern Railway Company to dismiss the action, and at the close of the testimony denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,000. From an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, Canadian Northern Railway Company and Canadian National Railways appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Hector Baxter, George E. Eric-son and W. E. Rowe, for appellants.
    
      Middleton <& Middleton, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 192 N. W. 496.
    
   Lees, C.

Action for damages for loss of sendees and expenses occasioned by bodily injuries to plaintiff’s wife, due to defendants’ negligence. Plaintiff bad a verdict and defendants appealed from an order denying tbeir motion in tbe alternative for judgment or a new trial.

Plaintiff is tbe husband of Phebe Van House. She was plaintiff in an action against these defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendants’ appeal in that action was beard at tbe same time as this appeal and tbe opinion therein is found on page 59, supra. Our disposition of tbe wife’s case determines all tbe questions in this case except that of damages. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,000. Defendants contend that the verdict is so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice. Tbe court charged that, if tbe verdict was in plaintiff’s favor, tbe measure of damages was compensation for tbe loss of the services and companionship of bis wife and, in addition, tbe reasonable expenses be bad incurred on account of her injuries. As to tbe last item of damage, this was said.:

“So far as tbe expenses are concerned, I think you will remember tbe testimony. They are tbe medical expenses * * * the bills that be paid to tbe doctors and for some medicine, then the trip to Warren and the expenses there at tbe hospital, then for hired girls, for a nurse, and for bis own services as nurse.” '

Tbe propriety of this statement is challenged on two grounds: The first, that tbe trip to Warren was made, not to obtain medical treatment for tbe wife, but to secure evidence for use at tbe trial, and hence tbe expense was not a proper item for consideration by tbe jury; and tbe second that, if plaintiff could recover at all for bis services in nursing bis wife, be could recover only tbe reasonable value of such services and that there bad been no proof thereof.

As to tbe first point, there is nothing in tbe record to suggest that tbe Warren trip was made solely to get evidence. Tbe evidence warrants tbe inference that it was made to consult Dr. Bratrud and get tbe benefit of bis advice after be bad examined Mrs. Van House. There was no objection to proof of tbe expense of tbe trip. Tbe able counsel for defendants would hardly have failed to object if they thought tbe evidence was inadmissible or that it showed that the trip was taken merely to get evidence. The facts are unlike those in Benoe v. Duluth St. Ry. Co. 138 Minn. 165, 164 N. W. 662.

As to the second point, we are of the opinion that, a husband should be allowed to recover the reasonable value of Ms own services in attendance upon his wife made necessary by reason of ber injuries. He owes her the duty of care and nursing. If he devotes Ms own time and services to the discharge of the duty, he should be allowed as much as he would have had to expend in hiring reasonably competent attendance and nursing by others. Numerous courts have adopted this doctrine. The cases may be found in a note to Wells v. Minneapolis B. & A. Assn. Ann. Cas. 1914D, p. 928. In the Wells case tMs court held that one injured by reason of the negligence of another may recover as special damages the reasonable value of necessary nursing at the hands of a member of the family, although there was no expectation of payment for the services. Wells v. Minneapolis B. & A. Assn. 122 Minn. 327, 142 N. W. 706, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 606, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 922. It has also been held that a husband who brings suit to recover damages for personal injuries to himself is entitled to recover the value of his wife’s services in nursing him. Crouse v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. 102 Wis. 196, 78 N. W. 446, 778; Chicago Transit Co. v. Moore, 259 Fed. 490, 506, 170 C. C. A. 466. We see no reason why the same rule should not be applied where the wife is injured aud the husband acts as her nurse. There was sufficient proof of the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services. He knew what nurses were paid because he had employed a nurse for about three weeks and paid her for her services. He testified that the reasonable value of his own services in nursing his wife was $50 or $60 a month.

Defendants urge that the verdict is manifestly excessive in view of the fact that the wife who sustained the iujury and suffered the 'pain was awarded only $3,000. There was a much greater disproportion in the verdicts in McNab v. Wallin, 133 Minn. 370, 158 N. W. 623, where the wife recovered $500 and the verdict for the husband was $1,750, reduced on appeal to $1,000. Plaintiff testified to expenditures aggregating a trifle over $350. There was evidence that his wife’s injuries are permanent. The value of her services to Trim bas been impaired and there has been an addition to the burden of caring for her which the law imposes upon him. We hold that the verdict is not so excessive as to justify this court in granting a new trial or in rediicing the amount awarded as a condition of a denial of a new trial.

Affirmed.  