§ 7327. Expenditures Incurred for Medical Attendance a Proper Element of Damages. The law allows the recovery of reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical and surgical attendance by one who has received a personal injury as a part of the damages consequent upon the injury. It is not a necessary condition to the recovery of these damages that the medical bills should have been paid. The recovery will be sustained although these expenses are unpaid at the time of the trial, if they have actually been incurred, but the evi

dence must clearly show the amount of the liability thus incurred and not satisfied.3

§ 7328. Causal Connection Between Injury and Attendance Essential. It is fundamental that the recovery of damages of this character should be restricted to such damages as have proximately resulted from the negligence of the defendant, and that the causal connection between the injury and the medical services should be established.*

§ 7329. Expenditures for Attendance must have been Reasonable in Amount.—The measure of the recovery under this head is not necessarily the amount paid for medical attendance. The reasonableness of the charges must be established." The reasonable charges intended are the reasonable charges of the profession generally and not the usual charges of the particular physician or surgeon who is testifying on that issue. The rule will not sanction a recovery for trouble that

the physician may be caused by being called as a witness in the event of action for the injuries. A prospective law suit cannot be considered as authorizing an increase of the charges."

§ 7330. Aggravation of Injury by Malpractice. The plaintiff must exercise reasonable or ordinary care in the employment of a physician and in the use of other means of effecting a cure; and if this is done, his damages, as we have already seen, should not be diminished, notwithstanding the jury may find that by a more skillful treatment his sufferings might have been alleviated and his condition improved."

§ 7331. Gratuitous Medical and Nursing Services.-It would seem a proper rule for the recovery of medical expenses that such expenses should have been actually incurred, and that, if they were rendered gratuitously for charity's sake, the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover their value of the defendant. But this statement of doctrinedoes not require that the intention to charge for the services should have been in the mind of the person rendering the services at the time. Thus, it has been held proper to allow the recovery of the reasonable value of the services of a physician, although it appeared that such physician intended to make no charge for his services at the time of their rendition on account of the injured person being a brother physician." So, the value of nursing bestowed without any intent of charging therefor has been permitted,12 even where rendered by a member of the family.13 An Indiana case uses this language: "When

'Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Campbell, 76 Tex. 174; s. c. 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 100; 13 S. W. Rep. 19.

8 See ante, § 7211.

'Baker v. Borello, 136 Cal. 160; s. c. 68 Pac. Rep. 591; Chicago City R. Co. v. Cooney, 196 Ill. 466; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 1029; aff'g s. c. 95 Ill. App. 471; Collins v. Council Bluffs, 32 Iowa 329; Baldwin v. Lincoln County, 29 Wash. 509; s. c. 69 Pac. Rep. 1081.

11 Ohliger v. Toledo, 10 Ohio C. D. 762; s. c. 20 Ohio C. C. 142. So, where plaintiff's physician stated, in detail, services rendered by him, and testified that he quit charging them on his books because he thought that plaintiff could never pay, and that his services subsequent to the injury sued for were not less than $150, the evidence was held sufficient to justify an instruction submitting outlay for medical

attention as an element of damage: Houston &c. R. Co. v. Bird (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. W. Rep. 756.

12 The D. S. Gregory, 2 Ben. (U. S.) 226; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 104 Ind. 239; s. c. 2 West. Rep. 236; 3 N. E. Rep. 874.

13 Brosnan v. Sweetser, 127 Ind. 1; s. c. 26 N. E. Rep. 555. In an action for injuries, evidence of plaintiff's daughter that she would not charge her mother anything for nursing, because the mother had nothing, but, if she was to do the nursing for a stranger, she would want $200, "and that she did that as a daughter would do it for a mother," and did not expect her brother to pay for it, did not preIclude the mother from recovering for the nursing, the value of which was fully proved: Beringer v. Dubuque St. R. Co., 118 Iowa 135; s.. c. 91 N. W. Rep. 931.

ever it is proper in such a case to prove the services of a physician or surgeon, a fair value of such services is the rule, even though they might have been rendered gratuitously."

9914

§ 7332. Special Treatment.-Expenses incurred in going to a distant city, pursuant to the advice of a physician, for special treatment of troubles resulting from an injury, and a reasonable and necessary outlay for this purpose in an attempt to effect a cure, have very properly been held an element of damages in an action for the negligence occasioning the injury necessitating such special treatment.1

15

§ 7333. Necessity of Evidence of Amount of Medical Expenses.It is essential to a recovery of expenses under this head that the amount expended or the extent of the liability incurred therefor should be shown,18 and the jury should not be allowed to estimate the amount of these expenses where there is no evidence to show their value.17 There must be more proof than the mere fact of the injury,1s or the number of visits,19 to warrant the recovery of these expenses. Where it is sought to recover the expenses of future treatment, the evidence of the necessity for such treatment and its probable cost must be clear.20

$7334. Expenses of Nursing.-Nursing expenses21 and hospital fees are always regarded as proper elements of damages in an action for personal injuries of a character requiring the services of a nurse.22

"Indianapolis v. Gaston, 58 Ind.

227.

15 Sherwood v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 82 Mich. 374; s. c. 46 N. W. Rep. 773; 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 337.

10 Reed v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 57 Iowa 23; Smith v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 108 Mo. 243; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep. 971; Waldopfel v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 524; s. c. 77 S. W. Rep. 128; Central Texas &c. R. Co. v. Smith, Tex. Civ. App.; s. c. 73 S. W. Rep. 537; San Antonio &c. R. Co. v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 371; s. c. 72 S. W. Rep. 226; Houston &c. R. Co. v. Richards, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 203; s. c. 49 S. W. Rep. 687. But see Scullane v. Kellogg, 169 Mass. 544; s. c. 48 N. E. Rep. 622; Trumble v. Happy, 114 Iowa 624; s. c. 87 N. W. Rep. 678.

"Brown v. White, 202 Pa. St. 297; S. c. 51 Atl. Rep. 962; Heater v. Delaware &c. R. Co., 90 App. Div.

(N. Y.) 495; s. c. 85 N. Y. Supp.
524.

18 Page v. Delaware &c. Canal Co.,.
34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 618; s. c. 54
N. Y. Supp. 442.

19 Carter v. Nunda, 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 501; s. c. 66 N. Y. Supp. 1059.

20 Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Flood (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. Rep. 331.

21 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Holland,.
122 III. 461; s. c. 11 West. Rep. 51;
13 N. E. Rep. 145; Wissler v. Atlan-
tic, 123 Iowa 11; s. c. 98 N. W. Rep.
131; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Short
(Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. Rep. 56;
Trow v. Thomas, 70 Vt. 580; s. c.
41 Atl. Rep. 652; Turner v. Boston
&c. R. Co., 158 Mass. 261; s. c. 33
N. E. Rep. 520.

Montgomery St. R. Co. v. Ma-
son, 133 Ala. 508; s. c. 32 South.
Rep. 261: McLain v. St. Louis &c.
R. Co.. 100 Mo. App. 374; s. c. 73
S. W. Rep. 909.

As in the case of medical services, 23 it is not essential to the recovery that the expenses should have been paid, or even that a bill should have been rendered at the time of trial. The reasonable value of these services and not the price agreed to be paid therefor is the true measure of damages.25 Expenses for nursing services may be demanded, though rendered by a member of the family.26 But the value of the time of a husband or father for nursing his wife or child is determined wholly with reference to its value as nursing, and he cannot recover in addition the value of the loss of time at his ordinary occupation,27 and this is the rule though other employment is relinquished by any one to wait upon an injured person.2

28

§ 7335. Recovery in Actions by Married Women.-A married woman living with her husband cannot recover in an action for personal injuries for medical attendance or nursing unless she paid such expenses or the liability therefor was incurred upon the faith and credit of her separate estate. 29 A married woman living apart from her husband and supporting herself would seem entitled to recover for expenses incurred for medical services in an action for personal injuries suffered by her.30 Under the Civil Damage Act of Michigan it has been held that the fact that the husband gave his note for the

23 See ante, § 7327.

24

'Styles v. Decatur, 131 Mich. 443; s. c. 91 N. W. Rep. 622; 9 Det. Leg. N. 396.

25 Texas &c. R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. Rep. 56.

26 Wissler v. Atlantic, 123 Iowa 11; s. c. 98 N. W. Rep. 131; Thomas v. Dansby, 74 Mich. 398; s. c. 41 N. W. Rep. 1088; Blair v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 89 Mo. 334; s. c. 5 West. Rep. 454; Schmitz v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 380; Ceigler v. Hopper &c. Co., 90 App. Div. (N. Y.) 379; s. c. 85 N. Y. Supp. 656; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. Rep. 56 (fact that nursing services were rendered by members of family should be alleged); Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Holman, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 16; s. c. 39 S. W. Rep. 130.

27 Southern R. Co. v. Crowder, 135 Ala. 417; s. c. 33 South. Rep. 335; Salida v. McKinna, 16 Colo. 523; s. c. 27 Pac. Rep. 810; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Morris, 10 Kan. App. 61; s. c. 61 Pac. Rep. 972; Bridger v. Asheville &c. R. Co., 27 S. C. 456;

s. c. 13 Am. St. Rep. 653; 3 S. E.
Rep. 860; Barnes v. Keene, 132 N.
Y. 13; s. c. 29 N. E. Rep. 1090; 42
N. Y. St. Rep. 853.

29 Walker v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St. 168; s. c. 45 Atl. Rep. 657.

Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Crosby, 107 Ind. 32; S. c. 4 West. Rep. 464: Atchison &c. Co. v. McGinnis, 46 Kan. 109; s. c. 26 Pac. Rep. 453; Lacas v. Detroit City R. Co., 92 Mich. 412; s. c. 52 N. W. Rep. 745; State v. Detroit, 113 Mich. 649; s. c. 72 N. W. Rep. 8; Rogers v. Orion, 116 Mich. 324; s. c. 4 Det. Leg. N. 1086; 74 N. W. Rep. 463; Vergin v. Saginaw, 125 Mich. 499; s. c. 7 Det. Leg. N. 602; 84 N. W. Rep. 1075; McLean v. Kansas City, 81 Mo. App. 72; Moody v. Osgood, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 628; San Antonio v. Porter, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 444; s. c. 59 S. W. Rep. 922; Atlantic &c. R. Co. v. Ironmonger, 95 Va. 625; s. c. 29 S. E. Rep. 319.

30 Lammiman v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co., 112 Mich. 602; s. c. 4 Det. Leg. N. 134; 71 N. W. Rep. 153.