Arthur v. Royse
| Decision Date | 17 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 39902,39902 |
| Citation | 574 S.W.2d 22 |
| Parties | Helen ARTHUR et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Blanche ROYSE, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Royse, Deceased, Defendant-Respondent. . Louis District, Division Three |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Devereaux & Stokes, Michael D. Stokes, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Kortenhof & Ely, Ben Ely, Jr., St. Louis, Ely & Cary, Ben Ely, Sr., Hannibal, for defendant-respondent.
On August 5, 1974, plaintiff Helen Arthur was injured in one of a series of three collisions which occurred at the intersection of Hampton and Hancock Avenues in St. Louis. Charles Royse, driver of the vehicle that initiated the chain of accidents, died of an apparent heart attack some time during the mishap. Mrs. Arthur and her husband sued the administratrix of Royse's estate, and now appeal from a jury verdict which denied their prayer for damages. Appellants contend that they suffered prejudice as the result of the trial court's submission of defendant's verdict directing instruction. We agree and reverse and remand.
The evidence adduced at trial indicated that Charles Royse had a history of heart disease, including two documented coronaries, prior to his death at age 67. On August 5, 1974, at approximately 7:00 p. m., he was travelling in the middle lane of the three southbound lanes on Hampton Avenue. The weather was clear and dry. As he approached the intersection of Hampton and Hancock, Royse sideswiped an unoccupied vehicle in the lane to his right, then proceeded forward into the rear of the automobile in which Mrs. Arthur was a passenger. Mr. Arthur, driver of that car, had intended to turn right onto Hancock Avenue. The force of the impact pushed his car into another vehicle which had been preparing to turn left from Hancock onto Hampton. Walter Sansone, driver of that fourth car, testified that he had looked to his left immediately after hearing the first impact and saw Royse slump sideways behind the steering wheel before striking the Arthurs' car. The first police officer to arrive at the scene examined Royse for vital signs and concluded that he was dead. Royse was taken to City Hospital and pronounced dead on arrival. A subsequent inspection of the body revealed no evidence of bruises, cuts or other trauma. No autopsy was ever performed. The official death certificate signed by Royse's physician, Dr. Frede Martensen, indicated that the cause of death was acute myocardial infarction. This determination was based solely on Dr. Martensen's knowledge of Royse's previous medical history. Dr. Martensen testified that it would be impossible to state with certainty whether the heart attack occurred before or after Royse struck the first vehicle. During cross-examination, however, he agreed that a consideration of the facts of the incident and knowledge of the decedent's heart condition made it more probable that the attack occurred prior to the initial collision. Dr. Belmont Thiele, medical expert for the defendant, concurred with Dr. Martensen's second conclusion. Nevertheless, a jury question did exist as to whether a heart attack occurred before or after the first collision.
Instruction 5, the source of appellant's complaint and cynosure of this appeal, embodies the key to respondent's defense. The instruction reads:
Your verdict must be for the defendant on the claims of both Helen Arthur and Frederick Arthur for damages, if you believe:
First, defendant's decedent, Charles Royse, suffered a heart attack immediately before Either of the collisions mentioned in the evidence; and
Second, defendant's decedent, Charles Royse, did not know and by using the highest degree of care could not have known that he would suffer a heart attack; and
Third, such heart attack of defendant's decedent, Charles Royse, directly caused the collisions mentioned in the evidence.
The term "highest degree of care" as used in this Instruction means that degree of care that a very careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances. (emphasis added)
If the collisions were not caused by decedent's negligence but were ascribed instead to an "Act of God" (i. e.: a fatal heart attack), then the decedent should be absolved of any liability. In order to invoke the defense, however, the human actor must have exercised due care prior to the intervention of the super-human cause. Any negligence on the part of the decedent which concurred with the Act of God as the proximate cause of the accident would reinstate Royse's responsibility. Kennedy v. Union...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White, 62324
...it follows the substantive law and whether it will be correctly understood by a jury composed of average lay people." Arthur v. Royse, 574 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Mo.App.1978). Instruction No. 7 was as If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on the 5th day of......
-
State v. Coleman
...points out that statute § 562.041.1(2), RSMo 1978 requires that she "promote the commission" of an offense. She cites Arthur v. Royse, 574 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Mo.App.1978) for the rule that an instruction must properly follow the statute. Appellant further insists that the point to be made is no......
-
Huff v. Union Elec. Co.
...instruction is whether it follows the substantive law, and whether a jury, composed of ordinary people, can understand it. Arthur v. Royse, 574 S.W.2d 22 (Mo.App.1978). Respondent cites Ogle v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 534 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Mo.App.1976) in support of its contention......
-
Dorrin v. Union Elec. Co., 39454
...795 (Mo.App.1949). An appellate court must review allegedly offending language in the light of the entire instruction. Arthur v. Royse, 574 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Mo.App.1978). Given the facts under consideration here, the instruction was a proper guide to the jury as to the applicable law. No erro......