Appeal, No. 295, April T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Sept. T., 1959, No. 221, in case of Jeanne A. Bedillion et vir v. Mary L. Frazee. Judgment reversed.
James M. Marsh, with him August L. Sismondo, and LaBrum & Doak, for appellant.
Sanford S. Finder, with him Vincent R. Massock, for appellees.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 21]
The court below granted a new trial in this trespass case because it believed the verdict was inadequate. We will not reverse except for a gross abuse of discretion:
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 22]
into this civil action the character and reputation of the plaintiff wife. ..."
When a husband sues for the loss of his wife's consortium he is not obliged to prove the value of the loss in dollars and cents. The fact of marriage to the injured spouse is itself enough to support a finding for recovery because "in such cases jurors, endowed with at least a modicum of common sense, may be supposed to have some knowledge of ordinary affairs of life." Kelley v. Mayberry Township, 154 Pa. 440, 448, 26 A. 595; Delaware Etc. R. Co. v. Jones, 128 Pa. 308, 315, 18 A. 330; Platz v. McKean Twp., 178 Pa. 601, 36 A. 136.
The term "services" "implies whatever of aid, assistance, comfort and society the wife would be expected to render to, or bestow upon her husband, under the circumstances and in the condition in which they may be placed, whatever those may be." Kelley v. Mayberry Township, supra, at page 447. See also Neuberg v. Bobowicz, 401 Pa. 146, 462 A.2d 662.
Particular acts as well as reputation may be used as evidence in mitigation of damages in an action for criminal conversation: Ehrhart v. Bear, 51 Pa. Superior Ct. 39.
The grounds for recovery in an action for criminal conversation are the violation of the right of consortium, loss of services, etc.: Matusak ...