Toler v. City of Richmond

Richmond City Circuit Court

Toler v. City of Richmond

1 Va. Cir. 42, 1964 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1

Richmond City Circuit Court·Decided November 2, 1964·Published

Opinion

By JUDGE ROBERT LEWIS YOUNG

I have re-examined the authorities cited in the very able and exhaustive briefs filed on both sides. My opinion remains the same as it was in Ayers v. Spring (A-5020), namely that a married woman negligently injured may not include as an element of her damage her husband’s loss of her services and consortium. The married women’s acts remove disabilities; they do not create new rights of action. Rush v. Great American Ins. Co., 376 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn. 1964). With us a married woman may now bind herself to pay for ’’expenses” and may include a claim for them in her action for the negligent injury, but that is all.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE ROBERT LEWIS YOUNG

I have re-examined the authorities cited in the very able and exhaustive briefs filed on both sides. My opinion remains the same as it was in Ayers v. Spring (A-5020), namely that a married woman negligently injured may not include as an element of her damage her husband’s loss of her services and consortium. The married women’s acts remove disabilities; they do not create new rights of action. Rush v. Great American Ins. Co., 376 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn. 1964). With us a married woman may now bind herself to pay for ’’expenses” and may include a claim for them in her action for the negligent injury, but that is all.

Toler v. City of Richmond, 1 Va. Cir. 42, 1964 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1 (Va. Super. Ct. 1964).

Pincite

1 Va. Cir. 42 (Toler v. City of Richmond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related