48 La. Ann. 45 | La. | 1895
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The opponent, Dr. Mainegra, claims one thousand dollars for professional services to the deceased.
The deceased was assaulted in an attempt to rob her. She received lacerated wounds on the hands, wrists, on the back and nose. For these injuries the services rendered were applying salves, antiseptics and bandages. No bones were broken and no surgical operation was performed. From the injuries received there was a suppression of urine and the bladder was emptied sev - eral times by proper appliances. Twelve visits were made to the deceased. All these services were within the duties of an ordinary, or what is called a family physician, to distinguish him from the specialist.
Expert testimony was received as to the value of these services. As usual in such cases, there is a wide range in speculation. We will accept the estimate of Dr. Brickell, the lowest made, in connection with the disease with which it is said the deceased was afflicted, which made the dressing of her wounds not only disagreeable but dangerous. This estimate is ten dollars a visit. This ruling is in accordance with the doctrine announced in Hart vs. Dreyfous, 42 An. 631; Succession of Duclos, 11 An. 406; Collins vs. Graves, 13 An. 96.
The opponent, Knecht, claims one thousand two hundred and twenty dollars, seven hundred and twenty dollars for services rendered to the husband of the deceased for six years and more, at the
His services were those of clerk, and are prescribed by three years. This prescription is pleaded. The opposition was filed 16th March, 1894. His claim for services to March 16, 1891, were prescribed. He is entitled to recover for clerk’s hire from this date to the death of the husband, one]year and eight months, two hundred dollars. Colley vs. Latourette, 7 An. 222; Alexander vs. Alexander, 12 An. 588.
His services to the widow McNamara were of the same character as those given to the husband, with the addition of personal services to the deceased, such as changing her clothes, washing her face and feet. There was no agreement or contract with • the deceased, the opponent, we presume, fully’expecting a remembrance in her will. He is, however, entitled to recover for the value of his services. Dauenhauer and Husband vs. Succession of Brown, 47 An. 341.
We think three hundred dollars will be ample compensation for all the services he rendered the deceased for the nine months he devoted to her.