Johannes v. Edward G. Becht Laundry Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1925
• Docket Number: 25004
• Parties: JOHANNES v. EDWARD G. BECHT LAUNDRY CO
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

274 S.W. 377

JOHANNES v. EDWARD G. BECHT LAUNDRY CO

No. 25004

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

July 1, 1925

Motion for Rehearing Denied July 30, 1925.

McCarthy Morris & Zachritz, of St. Louis for appellant.

Robert H. Merryman, of St. Louis, for respondent.

OPINION

RAGLAND, P. J.

Action for personal injuries. Plaintiff, while walking along the north side of Arsenal street where it crosses Grand avenue in the city of St. Louis, was struck by a light motor truck driven by an employe of the defendant, and thrown against a passing wagon loaded with brick.

Grand avenue runs north and south, and, where it is crossed by Arsenal street, it is approximately 60 feet in width -- from curb to curb. Two street railway tracks occupy the center -- the one on the east is used for northbound cars and the one on the west for south-bound. Arsenal street at the intersection is about 64 feet wide. Its general direction is east and west, but where it crosses Grand avenue from the west it bears to the southeast. Because of the acute angle thus formed at the intersection, the left front corner of an automobile proceeding east along the south side of Arsenal across Grand at all times projects further east than any other part of the machine.

About midday on October 29, 1919, the date of the occurrence in question, one Ruhl was driving a Ford touring car eastwardly along the south side of Arsenal street. When he reached Grand avenue, he observed a southbound street car approaching, and stopped. When the car had passed, he started up and proceeded on across Grand avenue; his car moving at the rate of 4 or 5 miles an hour. When the front part of his automobile had passed the east rail of the east track of the street railway, and while the rear portion of the machine was still on the east track, his car was collided with by defendant's truck, which was traveling north along the east side of Grand avenue. According to one of plaintiff's witnesses, the truck was at the time moving at the rate of from 30 to 35 miles per hour; according to the driver of the truck at from 20 to 25 miles. As the truck was in the act of passing the touring car the left front fender of the car came into contact with the rear portion of the truck. The shock and jar from the impact were such that the steering wheel of the truck was wrenched from the driver's hands, and the truck took a northwest course, running about 125 feet, and not coming to a stop until it ran against the wagon loaded with brick. Plaintiff, who in his progress across Grand avenue, had reached a point 7 or 8 feet from the west curb, was in the path of the truck; he was knocked against the brick wagon, and later picked up from under the truck.

It was admitted that Arsenal street and Grand avenue where they cross each other were much traveled at all times, day and night. An ordinance of the city of St. Louis provided that no motor vehicle should be moved or propelled over any of its streets 'at a greater rate of speed than is reasonable, having regard to the traffic and use of such street, * * * or so as to endanger the life or limb of any person,' and in no event at a greater rate of speed than 8 miles per hour in the business portions of the city and 10 miles per hour in the other portions.

Immediately preceding his injury plaintiff was a strong healthy man of cheerful disposition. He was at the time 46 years of age, and was an employe of a meat packing company, receiving $ 3.35 per day. Prior to that employment he had worked as a painter and also as a pipe fitter. Following his injury he was at once taken to a hospital. From an examination then made it was found that, in addition to various bruises and contusions, he had suffered a fracture of the left hip; to be more specific, an impacted fracture of the head of the femur. This fracture, after plaintiff had been in one hospital seven months, and in another five, was finally reduced, but resulted in the shortening of the leg by approximately three-fourths of an inch. At the time of the trial, more than 3 years after the injury, plaintiff had not recovered the normal use of the limb. He had to drag his leg when walking, tired easily, could not go up steps, and suffered pain more or less all of the time from adhesions which had formed at the place of the fracture. It further appeared at the trial that, in addition to the specific conditions resulting from the injury to the leg, plaintiff's general health had become impaired. He was unable to do manual labor of any kind; he was at all times tired, listless, and despondent; he had continuous headaches; could not sleep; and suffered recurring spells of faintness. In April, 1921, he was examined by a specialist in nervous and mental diseases, who found that there was a partial paralysis on the left side. This condition, according to the specialist, was due either to organic disease or to injury to the central nervous system, the brain and spinal cord, and was in all probability permanent. The foregoing by no means catalogues all of plaintiff's ills as set forth in the testimony of himself and that of the physicians whom he called as witnesses; it merely outlines the facts relating to his injuries. The defendant offered no countervailing evidence on this feature of the case.

The petition contained several assignments of negligence, but at the instance of defendant all were withdrawn by instructions except the one charging violation of the speed ordinance, the substance of which has been set forth. An instruction on the measure of damages was the only instruction asked or given on behalf of plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in his favor for $ 28,000; the trial court, however, indicated that it would sustain a motion for a new trial, unless there was a remittitur of $ 15,500. The remittitur was entered, and judgment given for the remainder, $ 12,500. From such judgment defendant prosecutes this appeal. Additional facts will be stated in connection with the...