Biener v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
Decision Date | 07 April 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 26001.,26001. |
Parties | BIENER v. ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Williams, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Action by Henry Biener against the Saint Louis Public Service Company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a passenger on one of defendant's streetcars. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
T. E. Francis, O. P. Owen, and Frank X. Cleary, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Oscar Habenicht, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal in an action by Henry Biener against St. Louis Public Service Company, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while a passenger on one of defendant's streetcars, which collided with another streetcar owned and operated by the defendant. The accident occurred at the intersection of Twenty-third and Olive Streets, in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, on September 21, 1940. The trial below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $3,750, from which judgment defendant has appealed.
The first amended petition, upon which the case was tried, pleads general negligence charging that while the streetcar on which plaintiff was a passenger was standing, a violent collision occurred between said streetcar and another of defendant's streetcars. The answer of defendant was a general denial.
On the voir dire examination, and in the opening statement, counsel for defendant admitted defendant's responsibility for the collision, but did not admit that plaintiff was injured.
The evidence showed that at the time of the accident the streetcar in question was headed east and was stopped at the intersection of Twenty-third and Olive streets, when it was run into from the rear by another eastbound streetcar. Plaintiff testified that the impact threw him forward against the seat in front of him, and then backward into the seat in which he had been riding.
William Walker, another passenger, testified that when the streetcar reached the intersection of Twenty-third and Olive streets, it came to a stop, and while the car was standing still, there was an impact, a terrific lurch. He stated he could feel the effects of the impact or collision; it was strong and very noticeable; his stomach was "pretty considerably upset" as a result of the collision. He also stated that he did not go to work until the following Monday afternoon; that he was pretty well shaken up, and his stomach was pretty well upset. On cross-examination he testified that he did not see any broken glass in either streetcar, but saw quite a dent in the apron at the rear end of the streetcar on which he was riding. He further stated that there were stop lights on the rear end of the streetcar, which were burning, and that the glass was not broken in either one of them. He further stated that he was not treated by a doctor for any injuries.
Ira L. Gourley, the motorman of the streetcar which was struck, testified for defendant. He stated that when he reached Twenty-third Street he stopped to permit two passengers to alight; that he released the brakes on the car, which was standing still on a downgrade when the collision occurred; that as a result of the collision his streetcar was moved forward about 4 feet. He stated that at the time he was seated on a swivel chair, which had a padded cushion on its back, and that he was not thrown off the chair. There was no glass broken in the streetcar, and no damage was done that he could see. He would not call the collision "quite a jar," but it made some noise.
Cleveland Skaggs, the operator of the other streetcar involved, also testified for defendant. He stated that no one in his car claimed to have been hurt as a result of the collision; that the glass in the headlight of his car was not broken, nor was the windshield cracked or broken, nor were the four lights on the car ahead nor any windows in the back of the streetcar with which he collided broken; that the car ahead was moved forward very little.
Defendant brought out in the cross-examination of Police Officer Krueger, plaintiff's witness, and in the direct examination of Police Officer Newman, defendant's witness, that the officers did not see any broken glass in the streetcar nor any damage to the streetcar.
It will thus be seen that one of the contested issues of fact in the case was whether or not the impact of the collision was sufficient to cause injury to anyone in the streetcar at the time.
For plaintiff, there was testimony that Miss Elizabeth Downs was also a passenger on the streetcar at the time it was struck and that she also complained of being injured. The admission of certain testimony with respect to her forms the basis of appellant's first assignment of error. The evidence shows that she was taken by police officers from the streetcar to the City Hospital. This testimony was given by Officer Krueger, who testified for plaintiff. The evidence went in without objection by defendant. On cross-examination of this witness, the following testimony was brought out:
Thereafter plaintiff placed on the stand Herman Barken, who testified that he was attorney for Miss Downs, who at the time of trial was in Topeka, Kansas. Barken was asked the following question, to which counsel for defendant objected on the ground that it called for hearsay testimony, was irrelevant, and was immaterial to the issues being tried: The objection was overruled and exceptions were saved. Barken answered:
In its brief, appellant contends that the foregoing evidence, admitted over his objection, was prejudicially erroneous because it injected immaterial, irrelevant, and collateral issues into the case, which could only tend to confuse and mislead the jury.
To ascertain whether the evidence was immaterial and irrelevant, it is necessary that we consider whether or not it may be said to logically tend to establish any fact in issue between the parties.
In Jones Commentaries on Evidence, Sec. 587, it is said:
See also our opinion in Ismert-Hincke Milling Co. v. Mercurio Bros. Spaghetti Mfg. Co., Mo.App., 243 S.W. 408, 410, where we say: "Nothing that is necessary for the court to know in order to reach a just conclusion in a given case can be said to be irrelevant and immaterial."
In the case at bar, the extent of plaintiff's injuries was the sole issue being tried. As bearing on that issue, the defendant's counsel sought to establish by evidence and by cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses that the force of the collision was so slight that it was unreasonable to suppose that plaintiff could have suffered the serious injury he claimed as a result of it. Plaintiff, on the other hand, by his evidence, tried to establish the fact that there was a violent impact, and he contends here that the evidence complained of tended to corroborate that theory. We believe the evidence did bear directly upon the issues and that it was logically relevant. We believe that the inference from this evidence, that the collision was of such severity as to likely cause injury, was so plausible and direct that it became...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meierotto v. Thompson
... ... 32 Joseph T. Meierotto v. Frank A. Thompson, Trustee, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a Corporation, Debtor, Appellant No. 39984 ... 332 Mo. 831, 60 S.W.2d 393; Weishar v. Kansas City Public ... Serv. Co. 128 S.W.2d 332; Bresler v. Kansas City ... Public Serv ... "place of repair," and had not been taken "out ... of service" even temporarily. It was in use, though not ... moving; the plaintiff ... rather than of an impeaching nature. Biener v. St. Louis ... Public Serv. Co., 160 S.W.2d 780; Godsy v ... ...
-
Bedenk v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
... ... See Biener v. St. Louis Public Service Co. Mo.App., 160 S.W.2d 780, 785. We think the ... Page 616 ... fact of recovery for the death of the child by plaintiff and her husband, the amount thereof and that it had been paid by defendant was wholly irrelevant to any issue in the case on trial. The exhibit ... ...
-
O'Neil v. Fred Evens Motor Sales Co.
... ... FRED EVENS MOTOR SALES CO. et al ... No. 25996 ... St. Louis" Court of Appeals. Missouri ... April 7, 1942 ... [160 S.W.2d 776] ... \xC2" ... 861, 46 S.W.2d 955; Freese v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 58 S.W.2d 758; Weiler v. Peerless White Lime Co., ... ...
-
Kasten v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
... ... Is the verdict as reduced by the trial court excessive? In passing on this issue the appellate court must accept as true all evidence and inferences favorable to the verdict and disregard all evidence which conflicts therewith. Henderson v. Dolas, Mo.Sup., 217 S.W.2d 554; Biener v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 160 S.W.2d 780; Mickel v. Thompson, 348 ... Mo. 991, 156 S.W.2d 721; Peterson v. Kansas City, 324 Mo. 454, 23 S.W.2d 1045; Webb v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 342 Mo. 394, 116 S.W.2d 27. We cannot weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the ... ...