Davis v. F. M. Stamper Co.

• Decision Date: 13 March 1941
• Docket Number: 37204
• Citation: 148 S.W.2d 765,347 Mo. 761
• Parties: Herschel F. Davis v. F. M. Stamper Company, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

148 S.W.2d 765

347 Mo. 761

Herschel F. Davis v. F. M. Stamper Company, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 37204

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 13, 1941

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Paul A. Buzard Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Mitchell J. Henderson, Henderson, Deacy, Henderson & Swofford, Thos E. Deacy, Hunter & Chamier, Oak Hunter and Herbert Jacob for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing to sustain defendant's demurrer to the evidence and to charge the jury at the close of all the evidence, in the case, as requested by the defendant that the verdict of the jury should be for the defendant and against plaintiff because under all the evidence in the case and plaintiff's own testimony, he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in that his own testimony, the physical facts and all of the evidence in the case disclosed that the defendant's truck was plainly visible to the plaintiff by the headlights of the car in which he was riding; that he was looking ahead and must have seen the same in time thereafter to have warned the driver of the automobile in which he was riding and thus have prevented the collision, but that the plaintiff negligently failed so to do, and plaintiff was thereby guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. State ex rel. K. C. Southern Ry. Co. v. Shain, 1055 S.W.2d 915; Dempsey v. Horton, 84 S.W.2d 621; Woods v. Moore, 48 S.W.2d 202; Dove v. A., T. & S. Fe, 140 S.W.2d 715; Davis v. Howell, 27 S.W.2d 13. (2) The court erred in refusing to sustain defendant's demurrer to the evidence because plaintiff's evidence in the case, the physical facts and all of the evidence in the case disclosed that the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding must have seen defendant's truck by the headlights on his own automobile in sufficient time to thereafter have avoided the collision, and the negligence of the driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding was the sole and proximate cause of the collision State ex rel. K. C. Southern Ry. Co. v. Shain, 105 S.W.2d 915; Dempsey v. Horton, 84 S.W.2d 621; Woods v. Moore, 48 S.W.2d 202; Dove v. A., T. & S. Fe, 140 S.W.2d 715; Davis v. Howell, 27 S.W.2d 13. (3) It was reversible error on the part of the trial court to permit plaintiff's counsel, over the objection and exception of the defendant, to state to the jury in his closing argument that the defendant would not have to pay any part of the $ 25,000 judgment which plaintiff was asking in the case. The trial court erroneously overruled defendant's objection to such improper argument and thus stamped said prejudicial argument with approval. Rytersky v. O'Brien, 335 Mo. 22, 70 S.W.2d 538; Buehler v. Festus Mercantile Co., 119 S.W.2d 961; O'Hara v. Lamb Const. Co., 197 S.W. 163; Olian v. Olian, 332 Mo. 689, 59 S.W.2d 673; Crapson v. United Chautauqua Co., 27 S.W.2d 722; Jackman v. St. Louis & H. Ry. Co., 206 S.W. 244; Davis v. Quermann, 22 S.W.2d 58; Stroud v. Doe Run Lead Co., 272 S.W. 1080; Burton v. Phillips, 7 S.W.2d 712; Kirkpatrick v. Wells, 319 Mo. 1040, 63 S.W.2d 591; Asadorian v. Sayman, 282 S.W. 507; Smith v. St. L. & S.W. Ry. Co., 31 S.W.2d 105; Killoren v. Dunn, 68 Mo.App. 212; Whitman v. Carver, 337 Mo. 1247, 88 S.W.2d 885; Trent v. Lechtman Prtg. Co., 141 Mo.App. 437, 126 S.W. 238; Allen v. Autenrieth, 280 S.W. 79; Graesser v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 78 S.W.2d 551; Carpenter v. Kurn, 136 S.W.2d 997. (4) The manipulation by plaintiff of his injured arm and the demonstration by plaintiff with aid and assistance of his counsel of his disability to the jury, over the objection of defendant was prejudicial and the court erred in permitting such manipulation and demonstration, and erred in denying defendant's request that the jury be discharged by reason thereof. Willis v. Browning, 161 Mo.App. 461; Edwards v. Woods, 342 Mo. 1097, 119 S.W.2d 359. (5) The verdict of the jury was excessive. Plaintiff's principal injury was the loss of his right arm at a point about midway between the elbow and shoulder. He was naturally left-handed. The verdict of $ 20,000 for such injury was excessive and shows upon its face that such verdict was the result of bias and prejudice. Cole v. Uhlmann Grain Co., 344 Mo. 277, 100 S.W.2d 311; Rose v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 315 Mo. 1181, 289 S.W. 914; Henry v. Ill. Central Ry. Co., 282 S.W. 423; Wolfe v. Payne, 294 Mo. 170, 241 S.W. 915; Young v. Lusk, 268 Mo. 625, 187 S.W. 849; Rodney v. St. Louis-S. W. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 676; Leighton v. Davis, 260 S.W. 986; Radler v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 330 Mo. 968, 51 S.W.2d 1011; Freeman v. Term. Railroad Assn., 341 Mo. 288, 107 S.W.2d 36. (6) The verdict of the jury was excessive and should the court rule the other assignments of error Grain Co., 344 Mo. 277, 100 S.W.2d 311; Rose v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 315 Mo. 1181, 289 S.W. 913; Henry v. Ill. Central Ry. Co., 282 S.W. 423; Wolfe v. Payne, 294 Mo. 170, 241 S.W. 915; Young v. Lusk, 268 Mo. 625, 187 S.W. 849; Rodney v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 676; Leighton v. Davis, 260 S.W. 986; Radler v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 330 Mo. 968, 51 S.W.2d 1011; Freeman v. Term. Railway Assn., 341 Mo. 288, 107 S.W.2d 36.

Clay C. Rogers, Rufus Burrus, Mossman, Rogers & Bell and Burrus & Burrus for respondent.

(1) Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The alleged negligence of plaintiff's host was not the sole cause of the collision. Sec. 7778, R. S. 1929; Cotton v. Ship-by-Truck Co., 337 Mo. 270, 85 S.W.2d 80; Smith v. Producers Cold Storage Co., 128 S.W.2d 299; Buehler v. Festus Merc. Co., 343 Mo. 139, 119 S.W.2d 961; Bolan v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 284 S.W. 144. (2) The alleged negligence of McCormick is not imputable to the plaintiff. Buehler v. Festus Merc. Co., 119 S.W.2d 965; Herrington v. Hoey, 139 S.W.2d 477; Smith v. Producers Cold Storage Co., 128 S.W.2d 303; Cotton v. Ship-by-Truck Co., 337 Mo. 270, 85 S.W.2d 80; Pfeiffer v. Schee, 107 S.W.2d 170; Bedsaul v. Feeback, 341 Mo. 50, 106 S.W.2d 431; Clason v. Lenz, 332 Mo. 1113, 61 S.W.2d 727; McLarney v. Cary, 98 S.W.2d 144; Weaver v. Stephens, 78 S.W.2d 903; McCrory v. Thurnau, 84 S.W.2d 147; Drakesmith v. Ryan, 57 S.W.2d 727; Snyder v. Murray, 17 S.W.2d 639, 223 Mo.App. 671; Powell v. Schofield, 15 S.W.2d 876; Roper v. Greenspon, 272 Mo. 288, 198 S.W. 1106; Morris v. Sells Floto Circus, 65 F.2d 782; Kimmell v. Mitchell, 216 Iowa 366, 249 N.W. 151; Brown v. Raymond Bros. Motor Transit, 186 Minn. 321, 243 N.W. 112; Denver Tramway Corp. v. Burke, 94 Colo. 25, 28 P.2d 253; Boone v. Bank of America, 220 Cal. 93, 29 P. 409; Burgna v. Taylor, 114 Fla. 723, 154 So. 831; Kisling v. Thurman, 214 Iowa 911, 243 N.W. 552; Johnson v. Amsterdam, 282 N.Y.S. 417; Gongolez v. Nichols, 116 Cal.App. 738, 294 P. 758. (3) Defendant's authorities distinguished. State ex rel. Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Shain, 105 S.W.2d 915; Dempsey v. Horton, 337 Mo. 379, 84 S.W.2d 624; Woods v. Moore, 48 S.W.2d 202; Davis v. Howell, 324 Mo. 1227, 27 S.W.2d 13; Dove v. A. T. & S. Fe Ry. Co., 140 S.W.2d 715. (4) On alleged error respecting argument of counsel. (a) The assignment of error is insufficient to preserve the point for review. School Dist. of Kansas City v. Phoenix Land & Imp. Co., 297 Mo. 332, 249 S.W. 41; Bradbury v. Crites, 281 S.W. 731; State v. Pressler, 290 S.W. 142; Martin v. Connor, 128 S.W.2d 309; McGee v. St. Joseph Belt Ry. Co., 93 S.W.2d 119. (b) The objection made to this argument is insufficient to present the matter for review. Ternetz v. St. Louis Lime & Cement Co., 252 S.W. 71; Morton v. S.W. T. & T. Co., 280 Mo. 360, 217 S.W. 831; Heinbach v. Heinbach, 274 Mo. 301, 202 S.W. 1123; State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 S.W. 4; Milliken v. Larrabee, 192 S.W. 103; Murphy v. Fidelity Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 226 Mo.App. 1181, 49 S.W.2d 668; Walker v. St. Joseph Belt Ry. Co., 102 S.W.2d 726; Newport v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 127 S.W.2d 687; Randol v. Kline's, Inc., 330 Mo. 343, 49 S.W.2d 118; Brown v. Alton Ry. Co., 132 S.W.2d 730; Stevens v. Eldorado, 190 S.W. 1004; Riefling v. Juede, 165 Mo.App. 216, 147 S.W. 168; Kent v. Price Mercantile Co., 17 S.W.2d 983; Leingang v. Geller, Ward & Hasner Hardware Co., 335 Mo. 549, 73 S.W. 256; Donnley v. Hamm, 98 S.W.2d 966. (c) The argument was proper as an answer to the argument of counsel for defendant. Huhn v. Ruprecht, 2 S.W.2d 760; Yost v. Union Pac. Railroad Co., 245 Mo. 219, 149 S.W. 577; Rainier v. Q., O. & K. C. Ry. Co., 271 S.W. 500; Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., 20 S.W.2d 911; Cross v. Northern Cent. Coal Co., 186 S.W. 528; Allen v. Autenrieth, 280 S.W. 79; Rytersky v. O'Brien, 335 Mo. 20, 70 S.W.2d 538; Buehler v. Festus Mercantile Co., 119 S.W.2d 961; Paton v. Lund, 86 N.W. 297; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 169 S.W. 940; Clark-Pratt Cotton Mills Co. v. Bailey, 77 So. 995; Deep Vein Coal Co. v. Ward, 123 N.E. 228; Storla v. Spokane, P. & S. Transp. Co., 12 P.2d 1009; Enic Transfer & Storage Co. v. Fisher, 37 P.2d 825; Helmerich & Payne, Inc., v. Nunley, 54 P.2d 1088. (5) The court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to exhibit his body to the jury. Smith v. Thompson, 142 S.W.2d 75; Turnbull v. Kansas City Rys., 211 S.W. 41, 277 Mo. 645; Houston v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 94 S.W. 562, 118 Mo.App. 464; Evans v. Genl. Explosives Co., 239 S.W. 487, 293 Mo. 364; Lynch v. Baldwin, 117 S.W.2d 276.

Dalton, C. Hyde and Bradley, CC., concur.

OPINION

DALTON

This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on April 16, 1938, at about 1:30 A M., when the automobile in which plaintiff was riding, as a guest of one McCormick, collided with the rear of one of defendant's trucks, a tractor with trailer. As the result of injuries sustained, plaintiff's right arm had to be amputated about half way between the shoulder and the elbow. Pla...