Bradfield v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 10 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12893.,12893.
• Parties: BRADFIELD v. KANSAS CITY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

204 S.W. 819

BRADFIELD v. KANSAS CITY.

No. 12893.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 10, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. A. Lucas, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Lottie Bradfield against Kansas City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. A. Herzfeld, of Kansas City, for appellant. Hogsett & Boyle, of Kansas City, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff suffered severe injuries from a fall, by reason of stepping on a loose piece of paving in one of defendant's sidewalks. She recovered judgment in the circuit court. The only points of error relate to instruction No. 4, for plaintiff, and the amount of the verdict. The complaint as to the instruction is that, in so far as it dealt with the question of plaintiff's loss of earnings, it did not confine her to net earnings, and authorized a verdict, regardless of what she may have earned in other employment.

It is the duty of one damaged by another to make reasonable effort to minimize his loss. So, if he has lost wages by employment of one kind, but has earned less wages in employment of some other kind, his net loss would be the difference between the two, and he should not, on the matter of loss of time, be allowed the full wage he was receiving. Ebhland v. Railroad, 57 Mo. App. 147, 160; Sutherland Wyer, 67 Me. 64..

But that rule does not affect the instruction criticized. The evidence shows that at the time she was hurt she was earning money in two capacities, one as a saleswoman, and the other in renting rooms. Defendant suggests that what she earned in renting rooms should be subtracted from what she earned as a saleswoman. We think not. She was already receiving an income as a renter of rooms, and continued to receive it after her injury. It therefore could cut no figure in the adjustment of her damage by being deprived of her income as a saleswoman.

The next point is based on excessive verdict. It was for $5,000. There was evidence tending to prove that her knee and leg were permanently injured and that she was compelled to walk with a cane. Her affliction, brought on by defendant's negligence, has directly caused the loss of her income as a saleswoman, amounting to between $1,200 and $1,300 a year, which shows that, disabled as she is, she will soon lose a sum equal to the verdict. The witnesses, including a number of experts, show beyond all controversy that her injuries are not feigned—that her loss and injuries...