The opinion
On Remand
Bronson, J.
We agree with Judge Simon’s disposition of the case as to Mr. Kailimai. The fact that he did not produce documentation for his estimates concerning the value of the truck, lost wages, and lost investment goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Since the testimony was properly admitted, 1 there was no legally recognized reason given by the trial court for overturning the jury verdict and granting a new trial. Kailimai v The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co, 398 Mich 230 ; 247 NW2d 295 (1976). The new trial order for Mr. Kailimai’s claim was improper and the jury verdict must be reinstated.
We disagree with Judge Simon, however, on his disposition of Mrs. Kailimai’s loss of consortium claim. Loss of consortium includes "loss of society, companionship, service, and all other incidents of the marriage relationship”. Washington v Jones, 386 Mich 466, 472 ; 192 NW2d 234 (1972).
Mrs. Kailimai testified that her husband was confined to the hospital for two weeks after the accident. She further testified that for several months after arriving home, her husband could no longer sleep in bed but had to sleep in a reclining chair because of the pain. Neither she nor the children could touch him or get near him. Furthermore, he was unable to do any work around the house or take care of the children.
This testimony clearly shows that after the acci *149 dent Mrs. Kailimai was deprived of the companionship and services of her husband which she had previously enjoyed. Since she had established a claim for loss of consortium, the amount of damages suffered is a fact question to be determined by the jury and will not be set aside unless it is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience. See Pippen v Denison Division of Abex Corp, 66 Mich App 664 ; 239 NW2d 704 (1976), lv den, 399 Mich 823 (1977). Since our review of the record demonstrates that the award was " 'within the limits of what reasonable minds might deem just compensation’ ”, 2 the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a remittitur.
The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the jury verdict is reinstated. Costs to plaintiffs.
Bashara, P.J., concurred.
Because we have concluded that the evidence was properly admitted, we have no need to address the directed verdict issue raised in the dissenting and concurring opinion.
Stevens v Edward C Levy Co, 376 Mich 1, 5 ; 135 NW2d 414 (1965), quoting 6 Callaghan’s Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed), § 41.13, p 378.