Bruemmer v. Becker
| Decision Date | 09 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 56072,No. 1,56072,1 |
| Parties | Douglas J. BRUEMMER, a minor, By and Through his next friend and mother, Mary Alice Bruemmer, et al., (Plaintiffs) Appellants, v. William G. BECKER, (Defendant) Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Mogab, Hughes & Green, Richard L. Hughes, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Carter, Brinker & Doyen, Clayton, for respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Action by minor, through a next friend, for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by automobile, and by parents of minor for medical expenses on behalf of child as result of collision. Minor sought $70,000 damages and parents $1,300. Jury verdict was for defendant on both counts. Plaintiffs appeal. (Notice of appeal was filed prior to January 1, 1972.)
Douglas J. Bruemmer, then five years of age, was struck by an automobile driven by William G. Becker. The accident occurred on April 15, 1967, in the vicinity of 8423 Big Bend Road in Webster Groves, Missouri. Douglas was a pedestrian and Becker was driving an auto west on Big Bend. The collision occurred when Douglas went from either the sidewalk or curb along the north side of Big Bend into the Street. Becker had seen Douglas, with his back to the westbound traffic, on the sidewalk.
Appellants contend that the trial court improperly limited their voir dire examination of prospective jurors. The objection is based upon the trial court's refusal to permit appellants' counsel to ask the following questions:
'* * * Now, is there anyone on the Jury panel who does not feel that people operating automobiles in residential areas have an obligation to keep a lookout ahead and laterally, aside, including visible sidewalk area for people playing on the sidewalk area that might go into the street?
'Is there anyone on the panel who does not feel that adult drivers have an obligation to realize that young children playing near the street may unexpectedly carelessly dash into the street?'
Appellants contend that these inquiries were necessary in order to test the state of mind of the members of the panel and ascertain whether or not they had bias or prejudiced feelings in situations involving child pedestrians being struck by motorists.
The trial court did sustain the objection to the first question as phrased above. However, counsel was permitted to inquire whether or not they had any 'conscious scruples' about following the law if they were instructed by the court that operators of motor vehicles in residential areas are required to keep a lookout ahead and to both sides. They were asked whether they could follow that law if such an instruction was given. That inquiry essentially covers the question to which objection was sustained and the trial court's ruling which resulted in the question being so phrased (see State v. Mosier, 102 S.W.2d 620, 624 (Mo.1937)) was not error.
As for the second question, it was not phrased as an inquiry as to the panelists' willingness to follow the law which might apply....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bender v. Burlington-Northern R. Co.
...as would prevent them from returning a verdict accordingly." Duensing v. Huscher, 431 S.W.2d 169, 172 (Mo.1968). Also see Bruemmer v. Becker, 492 S.W.2d 781 (Mo.1973). The limited inquiry permitted in this case was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Cummings, Plaintiff's counsel also inqu......
-
Hart v. Forbes, WD
...all attending circumstances, defendant conformed to the standard of the highest degree of care. This case is similar to Bruemmer v. Becker, 492 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Mo.1973), a case involving a five-year-old pedestrian struck by defendant's vehicle. During voir dire, the following questions wer......