From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dowling v. Hebert

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 23, 1959
152 A.2d 642 (Conn. 1959)

Opinion

The plaintiff A was disabled, by injuries received in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of the defendants, from continuing to contribute her services to a restaurant corporation in which she owned stock and which her husband controlled. The restaurant was sold sometime after the accident. Despite the fact that her services were gratuitous, A was entitled to damages for impairment of earning capacity.

Argued April 10, 1959

Decided June 23, 1959

Action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County and tried to the court, FitzGerald, J.; judgment for the plaintiffs and appeal by the plaintiff Anna Choolgian. Error in part; new trial.

William R. Davis, with whom were Leon RisCassi, Francis J. McVane and Maurice J. Sponzo, for the appellant (plaintiff Anna Choolgian).

Snow G. Munford, for the appellees (defendants).


The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an automobile collision on May 13, 1956. The court entered judgment for all the plaintiffs, and from the judgment in her favor Anna Choolgian, hereinafter called the plaintiff, has appealed.

The sole question presented is whether the court erred in failing to award damages for loss or impairment of earning capacity. Before the accident, the plaintiff had worked for a number of years in the Wagon Wheel Restaurant, a family corporation in which she owned stock. Her husband dominated and controlled the corporation. The plaintiff worked an average of thirty-one hours a week, but she did not receive, nor did she expect, any compensation for her services. After the accident and before the trial, the restaurant business was sold. The plaintiff received no consideration from the sale. The reasonable value of the services performed by the plaintiff was $65 a week. Following the accident, the plaintiff, because of her injuries, did not return to the work she had been performing at the restaurant. Her ability to carry on this work would have been affected by her injuries for some time in the future. The plaintiff seeks to correct the finding, but no corrections are warranted.

Upon these facts, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages for any loss or impairment of her earning capacity because the services being performed by her at the time of the accident were gratuitous. This was error. Lashin v. Corcoran, decided this day. A new trial is required.


Summaries of

Dowling v. Hebert

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 23, 1959
152 A.2d 642 (Conn. 1959)
Case details for

Dowling v. Hebert

Case Details

Full title:GERALD DOWLING ET AL. v. ARTHUR HEBERT ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jun 23, 1959

Citations

152 A.2d 642 (Conn. 1959)
152 A.2d 642

Citing Cases

Commission on Human Rights v. State

The amount paid to replacement drivers is an indication of the market value of those services. Dowling v.…

Berndston v. Annino

In either case, his claim of proof should have been based upon the "market value of his services." See…