McMurry v. Magnusson
849 S.W.2d 619, 1993 WL 51093, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 306 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The value of nursing services provided by a family member may be recoverable as damages in a personal injury action if the plaintiff can rebut the presumption that such services were gratuitous. Whether a family relationship exists to create this presumption and whether that presumption has been rebutted by evidence of an express or implied contract are questions of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- Charles Magnusson was driving an automobile with Freda McMurry as a passenger.
- Magnusson's vehicle rear-ended a vehicle driven by Cecil Lindsay, which had stopped to avoid a camper shell that had fallen from Richard Crandall's truck.
- As a result of the collision, McMurry suffered back injuries requiring hospitalization.
- After being released from the hospital, McMurry was unable to care for herself and moved into her sister's home.
- McMurry's sister provided full-time personal and medical care for approximately four months.
- McMurry testified that she told her sister she would pay her for the services, suggesting a rate of $75 per day.
- On cross-examination, McMurry acknowledged her sister did not ask for money before she moved in and that her sister's invitation was 'mainly' because they were family.
- As of the trial date, McMurry had not paid her sister for the services rendered.
Procedural Posture:
- Freda McMurry sued Charles Magnusson, Cecil Lindsay, and Richard Crandall in a Missouri trial court for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court submitted a withdrawal instruction to the jury, ordering them not to consider evidence of damages for the home care McMurry's sister provided.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of McMurry and against defendant Magnusson, assessing damages at $25,000.
- The jury found in favor of defendants Lindsay and Crandall.
- Plaintiff McMurry later dismissed her cause of action against defendant Crandall.
- McMurry (appellant) appealed the damages award against Magnusson (appellee) and the judgment in favor of Lindsay (appellee) to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by instructing a jury to disregard evidence of damages for home nursing care provided by a plaintiff's family member on the grounds that such services are gratuitous as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Crandall, Presiding Judge
Yes. A trial court errs by taking the question of damages for familial nursing care away from the jury. While services rendered between family members are presumed to be gratuitous, this is a rebuttable presumption. First, whether a 'family relationship' exists to trigger the presumption is itself a question of fact for the jury; it is not established by blood relation alone but by factors such as living 'under one head and one domestic government.' Given that the adult sisters lived separately and only cohabitated for the purpose of the plaintiff's care, a jury could find that no such family relationship existed. Second, even if a family relationship is found, the plaintiff's testimony that she promised to pay for the services constitutes evidence that could rebut the presumption of gratuitousness. Therefore, the jury should have been allowed to determine as a matter of fact whether the sister's services were a gift or a recoverable expense under an express or implied contract.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the recoverability of damages for care provided by a family member is not barred simply by the existence of a familial relationship. It shifts the determination from a rigid legal rule applied by a judge to a fact-intensive inquiry for the jury, focusing on the actual intent and living arrangement of the parties. This empowers plaintiffs to seek compensation for necessary care even when provided by relatives, provided they can present evidence of an agreement to pay, thereby preventing tortfeasors from receiving a windfall. The ruling reinforces the principle that juries, not judges, should resolve factual disputes regarding the nature of such arrangements.
Unlock the full brief for McMurry v. Magnusson