Howells v. North American Transportation & Trading Co.

Citations

• 24 Wash. 689
• 64 P. 786
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 589

Syllabus

<p>PLEADING-BILL OF PARTICULARS-ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES -DAMAGES.</p> <p>In an action by husband and wife to recover damages for injuries received by the wife through defendant’s negligence, an instruction which submits to the jury the question of compensation for the suffering endured by the wife is prejudicial error, where, under a bill of particulars filed by plaintiffs, the items of damages claimed under the complaint are restricted to medical attendance, medicines and supplies, and time in attending to, nursing, and caring for the wife.</p> <p>SAME — STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY FURNISHED TO ADVERSE PARTY-EFFECT.</p> <p>The fact that a bill of particulars furnished upon the oral request of counsel for the adverse party, was not filed before trial, nor referred to at the time of trial is immaterial, since parties voluntarily furnishing a statement of items under their claim for damages are hound by it as fully as though furnished under the order of the court.</p> <p>TRIAL-FAILURE TO OBJECT TO TESTIMONY- ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS-ESTOPPEL TO URGE ERROR.</p> <p>In an action by husband and wife to recover for injuries to the wife, in which a bill of particulars restricted the damages to medical attendance, medicines and the husband’s claim for services in attending upon his wife, although the complaint had alleged the pain and suffering of the wife, the fact that evidence of the wife’s pain and suffering was admitted without objection by defendant would not estop it from urging objection to the error of the court in submitting to the jury the question of compensation for her pain and suffering, since such testimony was competent in support of the husband’s claim for money expended and services made necessary by such suffering.</p> <p>MEASURE OF DAMAGES-HUSBAND’S LOSS OF TIME NURSING WIFE.</p> <p>Where a husband seeks to recover for his services in attending his wife on account of injuries received through defendant’s negligence, the measure of his damages is not the amo