Carroll v. Mo. Power & Light Co.
Decision Date | 15 June 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 18345.,18345. |
Citation | 96 S.W.2d 1074 |
Parties | MARIE N. CARROLL, RESPONDENT, v. MISSOURI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, APPELLANT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Charles M. Bush and Cowgill & Popham for respondent.
Moore & Moore and Irwin & Bushman for appellant.
Plaintiff, who will be denominated herein as respondent, sued appellant for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while a passenger on appellant's street car, about February 3, 1930. Neither the sufficiency of the petition nor of the evidence, is challenged. Therefore we shall not set out the petition, and shall set out only such evidence as bears upon the points raised herein. From a judgment awarding damages of $5000 to respondent, this appeal is prosecuted.
Respondent was the first witness and testified that on the occasion alleged she was a passenger on appellant's street car and she rang the bell for a stop in the block where she lived. She was standing in the aisle, holding a sack of groceries in her left hand and holding on to the seat grip with the other; that she put her pocketbook under her left arm; that the pocketbook was a large brown one with a metal frame and two buttons that snapped past each other. These buttons were referred to by counsel for both plaintiff and defendant in examining witness as knobs. The pocketbook contained a bunch of keys, comb, pencil, mirror, small coin purse, handkerchief, metal spectacle case and compact. The car stopped abruptly, not in the usual way, and she was thrown forward, her left arm striking the metal fare box with great force. The knobs on the pocketbook caused a bruise about the size of a quarter on her arm and after a few hours she suffered pain in her arm and was sick at her stomach. She had partially lost sensation in her arm, hand and two fingers; her arm had shrunk some and there was atrophy of some muscles. It is not necessary to go into the extent of the injuries because no point is made on that in this case.
Dr. Kuhn testified that he examined her after the injury and told of her trouble with the arm, stating that her trouble was He testified that she, at the time of the trial, hand "changes in sensation in her hand over the branches of the median nerve and over the ulnar and also of the radial nerve." He further described the musculospiral, ulnar and median nerves and how an injury to them by being cut or crushed would manifest itself in certain parts of the arm, fingers and hand, going into details from which it is inferable that the symptoms of respondent were produced by some blow to the left arm, resulting in injury to said nerves. The following hypothetical question was asked of the witness:
Appellant objected to said question in the following terms: "MR. H.L. MOORE: That is objected to for the reason that it is an improper hypothetical question, an attempt to usurp the functions of the jury; that it is based on facts, some of the facts not in evidence; that it omits other facts that are in evidence that are necessary to form a fair conclusion, and furthermore that the question is purposely complicated with facts that have nothing to do with forming an opinion and that are inserted in the question for the express purpose of usurping the functions of the jury, and making the question cover facts that have nothing to do with the injury." And then the following record was made:
.......
.......
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Evans
...v. Hawley Corp., 120 W.Va. 334, 198 S.E. 138, 139. See Rogers on Expert Testimony, Third Edition, Sec. 49; Carroll v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 231 Mo.App. 265, 96 S.W.2d 1074; Castanie v. United Rys. Co., 249 Mo. 192, 155 S.W. 38, L.R.A.1915A, 1056; Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Holma......
-
Anderson v. Welty, 7793
...Ry. Co., 275 Mo. 459, 474, 205 S.W. 3, 8(13); Kelly v. Rieth, Mo.App., 168 S.W.2d 115, 118(1); Carroll v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 231 Mo.App. 265, 273, 96 S.W.2d 1074, 1079(12); Rose v. National Lead Co., Mo.App., 94 S.W.2d 1047, 1050(4); DeMoss v. Baudo, Mo.App., 79 S.W.2d 766, 771(6).......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Warner
... ... Hader, 337 Mo. 977, 87 S.W.2d 413, 416(7), 101 A.L.R. 1190; Sullivan v. Union Elec. Light & Power Co., 331 Mo. 1065, 56 S.W.2d 97, 104(17); Keyes v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 326 Mo. 236, 31 ... State Highway Com'n. v. Cook, Mo.App., 161 S.W.2d 691, 693-694(4); Carroll v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 231 Mo.App. 265, 273, 96 S.W.2d 1074, 1079(12, 13); Rose v. National ... ...
- Carroll v. Missouri Power & Light Co.