Denco Bus Lines v. Hargis

• Decision Date: 23 January 1951
• Docket Number: No. 33800,33800
• Citation: 1951 OK 11,229 P.2d 560,204 Okla. 339
• Parties: DENCO BUS LINES, Inc., et al. v. HARGIS.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 560

229 P.2d 560

204 Okla. 339

DENCO BUS LINES, Inc., et al. v. HARGIS.

No. 33800.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 23, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained, the court will not grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages, unless the amount awarded clearly shows that the jury was actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.

2. Upon commission of a tort it is the duty of the wrongdoer to answer for the damages wrought by his wrongful act, and that is measured by the whole loss so caused and the receipt of compensation by the injured party from a collateral source wholly independent of the wrongdoer does not operate to lessen the damages recoverable from the person causing the injury.

3. Under the provisions of 47 O.S. 1941 § 169, a motor carrier and his liability insurance bondsmen are jointly liable to make compensation for injuries to persons, resulting from the operation of such motor carrier, the liability being created by statute, and such an injury constitutes one cause of action against the joint defendants, and not a separate cause of action against each of them.

Draper Grigsby and James D. Foliart both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error Denco Bus Lines, Inc., and the Highway Insurance Underwriters.

Welcome D. Pierson and Howard Hentz, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error Otis S. James and Pennsylvania Casualty Co.

Cantrell, Carey & McCloud, of Oklahoma City, Arrington & Miller of Shawnee, for defendant in error.

WELCH, Justice.

Phena Hargis in action in damages for personal injuries received verdict of jury and judgment thereon against Denco Bus Lines, Inc., a corporation, Otis S. James, doing business as Norman-Shawnee Bus Lines; Highway Insurance Underwriters, a corporation, and Pennsylvania Casualty Company, a corporation, in the amount of $17,500.00.

The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of a bus collision involving a bus owned by the defendant Denco and a bus owned by the defendant James. The defendants insurance companies were respectively public liability insurance contractors under hire of the bus owners. The defendants Denco and its insurance carrier, Highway Insurance Underwriters, and, the defendants James and his insurance carrier, Pennsylvania Casualty Company, separately, appeal from the verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

No question is raised by the defendants as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show negligence on the part of both defendant Motor carriers resulting in injury to plaintiff, and of the liability of the defendants for such injuries.

It is asserted by defendants that the verdict of the jury in the amount of $17,500.00 is not supported by the evidence, is excessive, and appears to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice.

The bus collision occurred near Shawnee. The plaintiff, a bus passenger, testified that at the time of the accident she was thrown from a seat on the bus and was rendered unconscious for twenty or thirty minutes; that on return to consciousness she was suffering pain in her chest, back, both knees and both feet. Her testimony shows she was given first aid treatment in a hospital in Shawnee and was then removed to the home of a friend in that city, and was there confined to bed for two or three days, and was then removed to her home in Ada. A physician was called to her home and administered a hypodermic shot to her and the next day she was admitted to a hospital in Ada. She remained in the hospital five days and returned to her home, and according to testimony, emained in bed several weeks before returning to active employment.

The testimony reflects that plaintiff at the time of the accident was thirty-nine years of age and in good health and had a life expectancy of 27 years. She was employed in a supervisory position with a telephone company. She was out of such work for approximately six weeks after the accident. Thereafter, following periods of active employment for the company, plaintiff was off work for a six weeks period and a period of thirty-nine weeks.

At the trial of the case the plaintiff testified she was suffering from pain in the neck and back and headache and nervousness, and that such condition had prevailed and continued since the bus collision three years before; that such condition was heightened during active employment and was the cause of the lay-offs mentioned above; that the wages lost in lay-off amounted to $2,224.00 and that medical bills resulting from her injuries amounted to $312.50.

A physician who examined the plaintiff a few days after the bus collision and at the Ada hospital testified that plaintiff at the time had bruises and abrasions about her body and a badly sprained back and from history and observation appeared to be suffering from a brain concussion; that simple medication for the bruises and abrasions and rest was prescribed and practiced; that she left the hospital after five days and thereafter over a period of eighteen months he saw plaintiff on several occasions and administered light and heat treatments to her neck and back; that on such occasions she was nervous and had pain in her neck and back, and that such pain was found and demonstrable without reliance on her statements; that plaintiff's engagement in active employment after the accident was against his advice. The witness testified that he had known and treated the plaintiff prior to the time of the collision and that at the time of the collision plaintiff was in sound health and not afflicted with nervousness and bodily pain as found thereafter; that he had examined the plaintiff during the week preceding the trial of the case and had found the condition of nervousness and pain as in prior examinations. The witness expressed opinion that plaintiff's condition of recurring pain and nervousness was caused from injuries received in the bus collision, and that such condition was permanent.

Another physician called by the plaintiff testified concerning an examination of plaintiff at a time about ten months after the bus accident and at two other times within two years thereafter. The last examination being shortly before the trial date of this case. The witness stated that at each time of examination the plaintiff was suffering pain and nervousness observable and demonstrable without reliance on the statements of the plaintiff as to her condition. The witness expressed an opinion that the injuries sustained in the bus accident produced plaintiff's condition, and that plaintiff would never completely recover from all the effects of the injuries.

The measure of damages for a tort is such amount as will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby. 23 O.S. 1941, § 61; Deep Rock Oil Corp. v. Griffeth, 177 Okl. 208, 58 P.2d 323.

The recovery may include compensation for any pecuniary loss sustained by reason of the injury such as loss of work time and consequent loss of earnings and the expense incurred in necessary medical attention. Also, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for physical pain and suffering directly resulting from the wrongful acts of the defendant, and future pain and suffering on the part of the injured person in consequence of the injury constitute a proper element of the damages which may be allowed. 15 Am.Jur., Damages, Secs. 71, 72 and 73.

In a proper consideration of these elements, as said in Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Hawkins, 194 Okl. 272, 149 P.2d 783, 789: '* * * we have no right to place limitations upon the amount returned by the jury unless we are convinced that the amount of recovery bears no relation whatever to...