Brown v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 23 March 1949
• Parties: DON BROWN, RESPONDENT, v. DON CAMPBELL AND MONK CAMPBELL, D/B/A THE WAGON WHEEL, APPELLANTS
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

219 S.W.2d 661 DON BROWN, RESPONDENT,
v.
DON CAMPBELL AND MONK CAMPBELL, D/B/A THE WAGON WHEEL, APPELLANTS Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri. Opinion filed March 23, 1949.

[219 S.W.2d 662]

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jasper County. — Hon. Walter E. Bailey, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Gene Frost and Orval Jewett for appellants.

An instruction on future pain and suffering should clearly warn the jury that such is an element of damage only if from the evidence it is reasonably certain that future pain and suffering will occur. Ballard v. Kansas City 110 Mo. App. 391, 86 SW 479; Schwend v. St. Louis Transit Co., 105 Mo. App. 534, 80 SW 40. An instruction on future pain and suffering should not be given unless there is substantial evidence in the record from which the jury can find that it is reasonably certain that future pain and suffering will occur. Albin v. Chicago R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 103 Mo. App. 308, 77 SW 155; Allen v. St. Louis S.F.R. Co., 184 Mo. App. 492, 170 SW 455.

Roy Coyne and Max Patte for respondent.

Point one raised by the appellants was not properly saved in the motion for the new trial and not having been ruled on by the trial court, it should not be ruled on by this court. Section 140, General Code Statutes 1943, page 395. Jackson et al. v. Kansas City Bolt and Nut Company 141 SW 1128, 238 Mo. 656. In the event, however, the court does care to consider point one of the appellants' brief, then the respondent argues that the instruction does confine the jury within the limits of reasonable certainty and calls to the court's attention the following cases: Petty et al. v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 198 SW (2d) 684,; Lackland v. Lexington Coal Mining Co. 85 SW 397. The instruction on future pain and suffering was proper in this case as there was substantial evidence in the record from which the jury could find with reasonable certainty that future pain and suffering will occur. Frazier v. St. Louis Smelting and Refining Company 130 SW 489; Wilks v. St. Louis and S.F.R. Co., 141 SW 910.

VANDEVENTER, P.J.

This is an action for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff (respondent here) in the night club of the defendants (appellants here) by virtue of an assault, whereby, among other injuries, plaintiff received a fractured skull. From a judgment for $725.00, defendants appeal.

The only question before this court is: Did the trial court commit error in giving instruction No. 4, permitting an award of damages for future pain and suffering? That instruction is as follows:

"The Court instructs the Jury, that if, under the evidence and instructions of the Court, you find in favor of the Plaintiff, you should assess his damage at such amount as you believe, from the evidence, will be a fair compensation to him for the pain of body and mind, if any, which he has suffered, occasioned by his injuries in question, and for such pain of body and mind, if any, as in all probability he will suffer in the future, occasioned by such injuries, but the total damages which you may allow Plaintiff must not in any case exceed the sum of $10,000.00."

Appellant asserts that there was no evidence to justify the giving of the italicized portion of this instruction but that assuming it was based upon sufficient evidence, the one given was erroneous in that it should have authorized the jury to compensate plaintiff for such future pain and suffering, if any, as he would be "reasonably certain" to suffer instead of using the phrase "in all probability." The only evidence relative to future pain and suffering upon which the instruction could be based is conceded to be the following testimony of the plaintiff:

"Q. Did you have any headaches, or any pain?

"A. I have had headaches for quite a while since.

"Q. Are you being bothered with headaches now?

Mr. Frost: Objected to as leading, —

The Court: Objection overruled.

"Q. Are you being bothered now at the present time?

Mr. Frost: I object to that question, —

The Court: Objection overruled.

"A. I have headaches, they are pretty bad, worse than I ever did have them before."

This testimony, to us, appears to be rather weak and if it were a question of first impression, we would be inclined to hold that it was insufficient, but it has been held by the appellate courts of this state that such an instruction may be based upon the testimony of the plaintiff alone and that it is unnecessary to corroborate it by medical evidence. Frazier v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 150 Mo. App. 419, 130 S.W. 485. Wilks v. St. L.S.F.R. Co., 141 S.W. 910. 159 Mo. App. 711. Hutchison v. Moerschel Products Co., 133 S.W. (2) 701, 234 Mo. App. 518. Burns vs. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co. (Mo. App.) 187 S.W. 145. Winkler v. Terminal Ry. Ass'n. of St. Louis 206 Mo. App. 224, 227 S.W. 625.

It is argued that this instruction "fails to confine the jury within the limits of reasonable certainty" but permits it to enter into the realm of speculation, imagination and conjecture in awarding damages for future pain and suffering. In support of this contention, appellant cites four cases, which we shall review.

In Ballard v. Kansas City, 110 Mo. App. 391, 86 S.W. 479, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff could recover for pain and mental anguish which she "may suffer by reason of her injury in the future, if any." The appellate court held that this instruction was erroneous because it did not confine the...