Chicago, B. & QR Co. v. Conway
| Decision Date | 17 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 8119.,8119. |
| Citation | 29 F.2d 551 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. CONWAY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Douglas W. Robert, of St. Louis, Mo. (H. J. Nelson, of St. Joseph, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Lyon Anderson, of St. Louis, Mo. (John S. Leahy, Walter H. Saunders, Lambert E. Walther, Harold F. Hecker, and William O'Herin, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before BOOTH, Circuit Judge, and POLLOCK and DEWEY, District Judges.
Defendant in error, as plaintiff, brought this action against the railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries received while riding as a passenger on one of defendant's trains, which train was derailed and plaintiff injured by being thrown against a washstand in the washroom of a Pullman car. Liability for the damages received by plaintiff is admitted, and only the question of the amount of damages for the injuries received is in dispute. The jury allowed plaintiff $20,000. The assignments of error bring before this court for review only three grounds of error, namely:
The overruling of objection to the evidence of an expert, one Dr. Tooker, who was allowed to testify after having heard a detailed account of the nature of the accident, the character of the injury sustained by plaintiff, that in his opinion as an expert the double vision from which the plaintiff claims to have been suffering was caused by the injury received; (2) in allowing a witness, Richards, to testify as to the value of the personal services of the plaintiff when employed by the Mercantile Trust Company of St. Louis, as it is testified that company offered to employ him; (3) in overruling a motion for a new trial based upon the ground a juror on his voir dire, when asked if he was acquainted with counsel for the plaintiff, remained silent, and did not respond when in truth, and, in fact, shortly before this, the juror had sat in a case tried by counsel for plaintiff, and a verdict in that case was rendered in favor of the client represented by counsel for plaintiff, and, further, in the jury shaking hands with the counsel for plaintiff as he was leaving the courtroom on an adjournment of the court. Of these in their order.
While the form of the question propounded to the witness Dr. Tooker was not the best, yet, in the light of the authorities on this subject, we do not find it was so unusual in practice or prejudicial in its nature as to call for reversal of the judgment. Among other cases on this subject, see, in Missouri, O'Leary v. Scullin Steel Co., 303 Mo. 363, 260 S. W. 55; Busch & Latta Paint Co. v. Construction Co., 310 Mo. 419, 276 S. W. 614, in which it is held the evidence offered and received in this case was not prejudicial, entirely overruling former decisions of that court. See, also, Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Roller (C. C. A.) 100 F. 738, 49 L. R. A. 77, and Chicago Rys. Co. v. Kramer (C. C. A.) 234 F. 245. The above cases, and many others, hold the question and answer in this case complained of are not erroneous.
In so far as the second ground of error stated is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La France v. New York, New Haven and Hartford R. Co.
...7 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 709, 710; Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. Sewell, 4 Cir., 1930, 37 F.2d 230; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Conway, 8 Cir., 1928, 29 F. 2d 551; Southwest Metals Co. v. Gomez, 9 Cir., 1925, 4 F.2d 215, 39 A.L.R. 1416; Reed v. Pennsylvania Railroad C......
-
Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co.
... ... court at one time held in accord with appellant's ... contention. It has now held repeatedly to the contrary. In ... Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Roberts, 229 Ill. 481, 82 N.E ... 401, 402, the court said: "The opinion is permitted to ... be given to enable the jurors ... G. R. Co. v. Roller, 9 ... Cir., 100 F. 738, 49 L.R.A. 77; Runkle v. United States, 10 ... Cir., 42 F.2d 804; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Conway, 8 ... Cir., 29 F.2d 551; Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co., ... 223 Ala. 443, 137 So. 33; Moore v. Norwood, 41 Cal.App.2d ... 359, 106 P.2d ... ...
- Parks v. Knapp
-
Katz v. Nee
...& Coke Co. v. Williams, 8 Cir., 173 F. 337, 339; Denver & H. G. R. Co. v. Reller, 9 Cir., 100 F. 738, 49 L.R.A. 77; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Conway, 8 Cir., 29 F.2d 551; O'Leary v. Scullin Steel Co., 303 Mo. 363, 360 S.W. 55, 59; Runkle v. United States, 10 Cir., 42 F.2d The opinion in Un......