Bush v. Kansas City Public Service Co.

• Citation: 169 S.W.2d 331,350 Mo. 876
• Decision Date: 04 January 1943
• Docket Number: 38149
• Parties: Grover Bush, Respondent, v. Kansas City Public Service Company, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

169 S.W.2d 331

350 Mo. 876

Grover Bush, Respondent, v. Kansas City Public Service Company, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 38149

Supreme Court of Missouri

January 4, 1943

Motions for Rehearing and to Transfer to Banc Denied March 25, 1943.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Brown Harris Judge.

Affirmed.

Charles L. Carr and Watson, Ess, Groner, Barnett & Whittaker for appellant.

(1) A party has the right to cross-examine a witness of the adverse party, particularly the adverse party himself, and impeach and undermine the credibility of the witness with respect to the material issues in the case, with respect to the veracity, bias, prejudice, interest and demeanor of the witness himself and with respect to collateral matters. R. S 1939, secs. 1887, 1889, 1891; 70 C. J., Witnesses, sec. 779, pp. 611-613, sec. 782, pp. 615-616, sec. 787, p. 617, sec. 792, pp. 619-620, sec. 793, p. 621, sec. 1008, p. 802, sec. 1009, p. 804; sec. 1011, p. 806, sec. 1019, p. 813, sec. 1028, pp. 818-819. (2) The denial of the right of cross-examination and the exclusion of evidence on cross-examination, either with respect to the main issues in the case, the veracity, bias, prejudice, interest and demeanor of the witness himself or collateral matters, where such evidence would tend to impeach and discredit the witness, constitutes error. The above right of cross-examination includes the right, in particular as here involved, to impeach the credibility and veracity of the plaintiff in relation to his marital, family and other history. Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687; Tla-Koo-Yel-Lee v. United States, 167 U.S. 274; Pullman Co. v. Hall, 55 F.2d 139; Booker v. Kansas City Gas Co., 231 Mo.App. 214; State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74; State v. Crow, 337 Mo. 397; Rogers v. St. Avit, 60 S.W.2d 698; Riner v. Riek, 57 S.W.2d 724; Wilson v. Marland Refining Co., 7 S.W.2d 442; State v. Hersh, 296 S.W. 433; Taylor v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 285 S.W. 1012; State v. Davis, 284 Mo. 695; State v. Hobson, 177 S.W. 374; State v. Decker, 161 Mo.App. 396; Glasgow v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 191 Mo. 347; Koenig v. Union Depot Ry. Co., 173 Mo. 698; Tawser v. McAdam, 134 Kan. 596; Wood v. McKeever, 141 Kan. 323. (3) On cross-examination, either with respect to the main issues in the case, with respect to the veracity, bias, prejudice, interest and demeanor of the witness himself and with respect to collateral matters, evidence is admissible to impeach and undermine the credibility of the witness. Asadorian Rug Co. v. Chandeysson, 144 S.W.2d 199; State v. Quinn, 345 Mo. 855; Short v. White, 234 Mo.App. 499; Woods v. Washington Fidelity Natl. Ins. Co., 113 S.W.2d 121; McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., 341 Mo. 516; State v. Bagby, 338 Mo. 951; Lolordo v. Lacy, 337 Mo. 1097; Dempsey v. Horton, 337 Mo. 379; State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082; Barraclough v. Union Pacific R. Co., 331 Mo. 157; State v. Albritton, 328 Mo. 349; Truitt v. Rothschild-Greenfield Co., 32 S.W.2d 770; State v. Nasello, 325 Mo. 442; State v. Stogsdill, 324 Mo. 105; State ex rel. Natl. Ammonia Refining Co. v. Daues, 320 Mo. 1234; State v. Murray, 316 Mo. 31; Blake v. Keiser, 267 S.W. 94; State v. Cox, 263 S.W. 215; Gurley v. St. Louis Transit Co., 259 S.W. 895; Ulrich v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 281 Mo. 697; Eidson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 209 S.W. 575; Cogin v. Herman, 202 S.W. 552; Deubler v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 195 Mo.App. 658; Wendling v. Bowden, 252 Mo. 647; Miller v. Journal Co., 246 Mo. 722; Queatham v. Modern Woodmen of America, 148 Mo.App. 33; Rippetoe v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 138 Mo.App. 402; Tetrick v. Kansas City, 128 Mo.App. 355; Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 295; Farmer's & Merchant's Bank of Vandalia v. Richards, 119 Mo.App. 18; Alkire Grocery Co. v. Tagart, 78 Mo.App. 166. (4) An instruction must be both within the pleadings and the evidence and must not be broader than the pleadings, even though the evidence is broader, supports the submission, and such evidence was introduced without objection, where, as here, specific negligence is pleaded and other specific negligence, beyond the scope of the pleadings, is submitted to the jury. State ex rel. Anderson v. Hostetter, 140 S.W.2d 21; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645; Rishel v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 129 S.W.2d 851; Anderson v. Kraft, 129 S.W.2d 85; Barber v. Kellogg, 123 S.W.2d 100; Gandy v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 329 Mo. 459; State ex rel. Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Hostetter, 156 S.W.2d 673; Bennett v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co., 230 Mo.App. 939; Kitchen v. Schlueter Mfg. Co., 323 Mo. 1179. (5) An automobile driver is required (R. S. Mo. 1939, sections 8367, 8388) to exercise the highest degree of care while operating a motor vehicle on a public thoroughfare for vehicles in public highways and on public streets in Missouri, but otherwise is only held to the exercise of ordinary care, that is, (a) when the auto is not being operated and (b) when the auto is not on a public thoroughfare for vehicles. R. S. Mo. 1939, secs. 8367, 8383; Phillips v. Henson, 326 Mo. 282; Crocker v. Jett, 93 S.W.2d 74; Alexander v. Barnes Grocery Co., 223 Mo.App. 1; McLarney v. Cary, 98 S.W.2d 144; Ward v. City of Cortageville, 106 S.W.2d 497; Page v. Unterreiner, 106 S.W.2d 528; Tetherow v. St. Joseph & D. M. Ry. Co., 98 Mo. 74; Poague v. Kurn, 140 S.W.2d 13; Burns v. Joyce, 161 S.W.2d 655. (6) Instructions are for the direction and guidance of juries of ordinary laymen, and hence the language of an instruction should be so plain that no doubt can arise as to its meaning, and it should be a clear declaration of the law applicable to the facts and not open to two or more constructions, one of which is at variance with the law. Hopkins v. Highland Dairy Farms Co., 159 S.W.2d 254; Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co., 147 S.W.2d 593; Schipper v. Brashear Truck Co., 132 S.W.2d 993. (7) The verdict was excessive. Aaron v. Met. Street Ry. Co., 159 Mo.App. 307; Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., 323 Mo. 826; Johnston v. St. Louis, 138 S.W.2d 666; Osby v. Tarlton, 336 Mo. 1240. (8) While compensation for actual damages for personal injuries occasioned in an accident are not to be lessened because of plaintiff's former condition (either ill health or bad physical condition), compensation should not be allowed for such condition existing before the accident complained of. Green v. Boehm, 66 S.W.2d 570; Schide v. Gottschick, 329 Mo. 64; Simon v. S. S. Kresge Co., 103 S.W.2d 523; Borowski v. Luce-Wiles Biscuit Co., 229 S.W. 424; Ford v. Kansas City, 181 Mo. 137; Berry v. Kansas City Public Serv. Co., 341 Mo. 658.

E. E. Thompson, Alfred H. Osborne, Ben Mossel and Thompson & Osborne for respondent.

(1) The court did not commit error as claimed by defendant under its Point (1); the record presents nothing for review; if it be assumed merely for argumentative purposes that defendant preserved its claimed error for review, the evidence in question was properly excluded because: (a) The excluded evidence pertaining to plaintiff's conjugal status for a period in excess of twenty-five years previous to trial and the number of children he had was inadmissible and the admission of such evidence has been many times held to be prejudicial error. (b) No foundation was laid upon which to impeach plaintiff. (c) The excluded evidence was irrelevant immaterial, incompetent and pertained to a collateral matter. (d) Defendant sought to get evidence before the jury relating to extraneous, irrelevant, collateral and incompetent matters under the guise of impeachment. (e) The trial court properly exercised its sound discretion in excluding testimony. Byam v. K. C. Public Serv. Co. (Mo.), 41 S.W.2d 945; Hancock v. Blackwell, 139 Mo. 440, 41 S.W. 205; Sommer v. Continental Portland Cement Co., 246 S.W. 212; State ex rel. Dick & Bros. Quincy Brewery Co. v. Ellison, 229 S.W. 1059; Williams v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 123 Mo. 573, 27 S.W. 387; Hecke v. Dunham, 192 S.W. 120; Franklin v. Kansas City, 248 S.W. 616; State v. Clough, 38 S.W.2d l. c. 39; O'Shea v. Opp, 111 S.W.2d 40; State v. Barker, 246 S.W. 909; Janis v. Jenkins, 58 S.W.2d 298; Nagel v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 709; State v. Lasson, 238 S.W. 101; State v. Beatty, 94 S.W.2d 907; Schroeder v. Rawlings, 127 S.W.2d 678; Hoffman v. Graver, 153 S.W.2d 817; Lock v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 281 Mo. 532, 219 S.W. 919; Bertke v. Hoffman, 50 S.W.2d 107; Neal v. Caldwell, 326 Mo. 1146, 34 S.W.2d 104; McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 332 Mo. 356, 59 S.W.2d 37; Massman v. Muehlebach, 231 Mo.App. 72, 95 S.W.2d 808; Roach v. Kansas City Public Serv. Co., 141 S.W.2d 800; Arnold v. Alton R. Co., 154 S.W.2d 58; Wells v. Mo. Edison Electric Co., 108 Mo.App. 607, 84 S.W. 204. (2) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 was proper under the evidence and pleadings; defendant did not object to any of the evidence on the ground that it was not within the pleaded issues; defendant offered no instruction defining its theory of negligence; defendant admitted negligence at the trial below. Chap. 45, R. S. 1939, secs. 8383, 8385, sub-div. (g); Cornwell v. Highway Motor Freight Line, Inc., 152 S.W.2d 10; Jordan v. St. Joseph Ry., Light, Heat & Power Co., 335 Mo. 319, 73 S.W.2d 205; Robinson v. K. C. Public Serv. Co., 345 Mo. 764, 137 S.W.2d 548; North Nishnabotna Drain. Dist. v. Morgan, 323 Mo. 1, 18 S.W.2d 438; Null v. Stewart, 78 S.W.2d 75; Guthrie v. City of St. Charles, 152 S.W.2d 91; R. S. 1939, Secs. 953, 969, 975, 1228, 1265; Hampe v. Versen, 32 S.W.2d 793; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 195 S.W. 722; Degonia v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. 564, 123 S.W. 807; Rishel v. K. C. Public Serv. Co., 129 S.W.2d 851; Gandy v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 44 S.W.2d 634; Kitchen v. Schlueter Mfg. Co., 20 S.W.2d 676; Black v. Met....