Dodson v. Gate City Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1935
• Docket Number: 32191
• Citation: 88 S.W.2d 866,338 Mo. 183
• Parties: George A. Dodson v. Gate City Oil Company, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

88 S.W.2d 866

338 Mo. 183

George A. Dodson v. Gate City Oil Company, Appellant

No. 32191

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 19, 1935

Rehearing Denied December 19, 1935.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. C. Jasper Bell Judge.

Affirmed (upon condition).

Chas. M. Howell, Edgar Keating, Chas. M. Howell, Jr., Wm. H. Allen and Scott R. Timmons for appellant.

(1) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 attempted to submit the issues on the humanitarian doctrine alone, and the giving of said instruction was error for the following reasons: (a) The evidence was wholly insufficient to justify submission of the case under the humanitarian doctrine. Banks v. Morris, 257 S.W. 482, 302 Mo. 254; Murray v. St. Louis Wire & Iron Co., 238 S.W. 838; Columbia Taxicab Co. v. Englebrecht, 247 S.W. 239; Kelinowski v. Viermann, 211 S.W. 723; Benson v. Smith, 38 S.W.2d 743; Benson v. Smith, 38 S.W.2d 749. (b) The evidence wholly failed to sustain the allegations of the petition upon which the humanitarian doctrine was invoked. Banks v. Morris, 257 S.W. 482, 302 Mo. 254; Cervillo v. Manhattan Oil Co., 49 S.W.2d 183; Murray v. St. Louis Wire & Iron Co., 238 S.W. 835; Columbia Taxicab Co. v. Englebrecht, 247 S.W. 239. (c) The instruction assumes various material controverted facts. Oliver v. Railroad Co., 211 S.W. 699; Weddle v. Tarkio Electrical Co., 230 S.W. 390; Zini v. Term. Railroad Assn., 235 S.W. 86; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180; Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., 328 Mo. 423, 41 S.W.2d 563; Gessner v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 132 Mo.App. 587; Schmitt v. American Press, 42 S.W.2d 971. (d) The instruction purports to cover the entire case and directs a verdict for plaintiff, but omits and ignores elements essential to the proof of plaintiff's case. Macklin v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W.2d 19; Heigold v. United Rys. Co., 308 Mo. 142, 271 S.W. 773; State ex rel. Long v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 571, 199 S.W. 988; Hall v. Coal & Coke Co., 260 Mo. 351, 168 S.W. 932; Mackie v. United Rys. Co., 288 Mo. 122, 231 S.W. 956; Toennies v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 67 S.W.2d 820; Cassin v. Lusk, 277 Mo. 663, 210 S.W. 905; Dameron v. Hamilton, 264 Mo. 103, 174 S.W. 428. (2) The giving of plaintiff's Instruction 2 was error for the following reasons: (a) It assumes as true controverted facts. Oliver v. Railroad Co., 211 S.W. 701; Gunn v. Hemphill Lbr. Co., 218 S.W. 981; Weddle v. Tarkio Electrical Co., 230 S.W. 390; Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., 328 Mo. 423, 41 S.W.2d 563. (b) It singles out one element of the plaintiff's evidence for undue and objectionable comment. Keppler v. Wells, 238 S.W. 428; Rice v. Jefferson City Bridge & Transit Co., 216 S.W. 751; Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 96. (c) It entirely ignores defendant's evidence as to the condition of plaintiff's hip prior to this injury. Drake v. Milton Hospital Assn., 178 S.W. 464; Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 96. (d) It is confusing and misleading. Knapp v. Hanley, 153 Mo.App. 174, 132 S.W. 747; Peppers v. Ry. Co., 295 S.W. 761. (e) It is contradictory of and inconsistent with Instruction Q given for defendant. Bluedorn v. Mo. Pac., 108 Mo. 450; Kelly v. United Rys. Co., 153 Mo.App. 119; Spillane v. Mo. Pac., 111 Mo. 565; Crone v. United Rys. Co., 236 S.W. 657. (3) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction 2 in that such instruction does not limit plaintiff's right to recover to the specific acts of negligence pleaded or proved, and in that such instruction broadens the issues beyond the petition and proof. Schroeder v. Transit Co., 111 Mo.App. 75; Detrich v. Railroad Co., 143 Mo.App. 181; Beave v. Transit Co., 212 Mo. 353; Egan v. Palmer, 293 S.W. 464; Allen v. Ry. Co., 294 S.W. 87; Samples v. Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 1049. (4) The giving of plaintiff's third instruction constitutes error for the reason that it does not limit the amount of recovery for disabilities. Smoot v. Kansas City, 194 Mo. 522; Finley v. United Rys., 238 Mo. 15; Banks v. Morris & Co., 257 S.W. 486; Hawes v. K. C. Stock Yards Co., 103 Mo. 67; Rose v. Western Union, 38 S.W.2d 483. (5) The amount of the verdict is grossly excessive, and is obviously the result of passion and prejudice. Corn v. Ry. Co., 228 S.W. 78; Neal v. Ry. Co., 229 S.W. 215; Greenwell v. Ry. Co., 224 S.W. 410; Fitzsimmons v. Mo. Pac., 242 S.W. 923; Clark v. Hill, 252 S.W. 433; Henson v. Kansas City, 210 S.W. 13; Spencer v. Railroad Co., 297 S.W. 357; Sullivan v. Railroad Co., 12 S.W.2d 741; Hughes v. Schmidt, 30 S.W.2d 468, 325 Mo. 1099; Berry v. Railroad Co., 43 S.W.2d 782; Davis v. Buck Stove & Range Co., 48 S.W.2d 47, 329 Mo. 1177.

W. H. Senner and Madden, Freeman & Madden for respondent.

(1) Since under the pleadings and evidence no issue of contributory negligence appears, the humanitarian doctrine is not involved; respondent's Instruction I properly submitted to the jury for its finding the negligence of appellant. King v. Mo. Pac. 263, S.W. 832; Clark v. Railroad Co., 242 Mo. 609; Nivert v. Railroad Co., 232 Mo. 637; Hall v. Railroad Co., 219 Mo 591; Vaughn v. Brewing Co., 152 Mo.App. 60; Buck v. Thatcher, 7 S.W.2d 402; Spoeneman v. Uhri, 60 S.W.2d 11; State ex rel. v. Bland, 15 S.W.2d 800; Michigan City v. Werner, 114 N.E. 640; Arnold v. Railroad Co., 173 N.W. 254, 186 Iowa 538. (a) The evidence supported the submission. Bongner v. Ziegenhein, 165 Mo.App. 338; Meenach v. Crawford, 187 S.W. 884; Cytron v. Transit Co., 205 Mo. 720; Hodgins v. Jones, 64 S.W.2d 312; Christiansen v. Pub. Serv. Co., 62 S.W.2d 832; Childress v. Railroad Co., 141 Mo.App. 685; Murray v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 510; Moritz v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 664; Hall v. Railroad Co., 124 Mo.App. 661. (b) The evidence sustained the allegations of the petition under which the cause was submitted. (1) The evidence as to appellant's failure to slacken speed. Story v. Motor Bus Co., 37 S.W.2d 901; D'Wolf v. Dry Goods Co., 273 S.W. 176; Koelling v. Ice Co., 267 S.W. 37; Bongner v. Ziegenhein, 165 Mo.App. 338; Cox v. Reynolds, 18 S.W.2d 578; Hall v. Ry. Co., 124 Mo.App. 661; Childress v. Railroad Co., 141 Mo.App. 685; Rowe v. Hammond, 172 Mo.App. 213; Murray v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 501; Meenach v. Crawford, 187 S.W. 879; Hollensbe v. Dairy Co., 38 S.W.2d 276; Allison v. Dittbrenner, 50 S.W.2d 202; Story v. Motor Bus Co., 37 S.W.2d 898; Spoeneman v. Uhri, 60 S.W.2d 12; Seithal v. Dairy Co., 16 S.W.2d 689; Chawkley v. Ry. Co., 297 S.W. 20. (2) The evidence of the knowledge of appellant's driver that the street car with the respondent therein was in the pathway of the truck in a position of danger. Banks v. Morris, 257 S.W. 482; Bode v. Wells, 15 S.W.2d 336; McGowan v. Wells, 24 S.W.2d 638; Lyons v. Railroad Co., 235 Mo. 158; Montague v. Ry. Co., 264 S.W. 817; Myers v. Kennedy, 267 S.W. 810; Miller v. Rys. Co., 233 S.W. 1067. (c) No assumptions appear in the instruction. (1) The alleged assumption that respondent was in a position of peril and that appellant was aware actually or constructively thereof. Lyons v. Railroad Co., 253 Mo. 158; Montague v. Ry. Co., 264 S.W. 817; Myers v. Kennedy, 267 S.W. 814; Miller v. Rys. Co., 233 S.W. 1067; McCray v. Ry. Co., 10 S.W.2d 938; Moordale v. Realty Co., 58 S.W.2d 500; McLeod v. Products Co., 1 S.W.2d 126. (2) The alleged assumption of negligence. Zini v. Terminal, 235 S.W. 86; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180; Ward v. Mo. Pac., 277 S.W. 911; Adams v. Ry. Co., 272 S.W. 985; O'Leary v. Steel Co., 303 Mo. 385; Luck v. Pemberton, 29 S.W.2d 198. (3) The alleged assumption that the driver had the present ability to avert the collision. Spoeneman v. Uhri, 60 S.W.2d 11; Johnson v. Ry. Co., 64 S.W.2d 679; Hart v. Weber, 53 S.W.2d 916. (4) The alleged assumption that the driver could have stopped, slackened or swerved. (5) The alleged assumption that the collision would have been avoided by stopping, slackening or swerving. O'Leary v. Steel Co., supra. (6) The alleged assumption that the driver failed to stop, slacken or swerve. (7) The alleged assumption that the failure to stop, slacken or swerve was negligence. Hart v. Weber, 53 S.W.2d 916; Oglesby v. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.2d 179; Hastey v. Kaime, 297 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 223 S.W. 674; Corby v. Telephone Co., 231 Mo. 417; Burkard v. Rope Co., 217 Mo. 466; Rogles v. Rys. Co., 232 S.W. 97. (b) The instruction submits all elements essential to recovery. (2) Respondent's Instruction 2 was proper. Kiefer v. St. Joseph, 243 S.W. 109. (a) Alleged assumptions. O'Leary v. Steel Co., 303 Mo. 385. (1) The alleged assumption of negligence. Costello v. Kansas City, 280 Mo. 593. (2) The alleged assumption of injury. Lovett v. Terminal, 295 S.W. 93; Bowers v. Pub. Serv. Co., 41 S.W.2d 814; Miller v. Collins, 40 S.W.2d 1067. (3) The alleged assumption of negligence. (4) The alleged assumption as to aggravation of injury. O'Leary v. Steel Co., supra. (5) The alleged assumption that there was a union of the bones prior to injury. Lovett v. Terminal, supra. (b) The alleged comment on evidence. Morton v. Ry. Co., 20 S.W.2d 44; Lowry v. Fire Ins. Co., 272 S.W. 79; State ex rel. v. Haid, 59 S.W.2d 1060; Bollinger v. Mfg. Co., 249 S.W. 912. (c) This instruction negatived the theory and evidence of appellant. Lowry v. Fire Ins. Co., 272 S.W. 81. (d) This instruction, heretofore approved by this court, cannot be declared to be confusing or misleading. Kiefer v. St. Joseph, 243 S.W. 109; Monpleasure v. Foundry Co., 293 S.W. 84. (e) This instruction was not inconsistent with Instruction Q. (3) Instruction 2 did not broaden the issues beyond the pleadings and the proof. School District v. Power Co., 46 S.W.2d 181; Primmer v. Foundry Co., 20 S.W.2d 591; Cole v. Ry. Co., 61 S.W.2d 347. (4) Instruction 3 was proper. School District v. Power Co., 46 S.W.2d 181; Primmer v. Foundry Co., 20 S.W.2d 591; Kleinlein v. Foskin, 13 S.W.2d 658; Shutz v....