Domineck v. Western Coal & Mining Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1914
• Citation: 255 Mo. 463,164 S.W. 567
• Parties: DOMINECK v. WESTERN COAL & MINING CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

164 S.W. 567

255 Mo. 463

DOMINECK v. WESTERN COAL & MINING CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 3, 1914.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1178)—REVERSAL—GROUNDS—EXCESSIVE VERDICT.

The Supreme Court will grant a new trial, where the jury renders a verdict so excessive as to show misbehavior on their part, unless plaintiff will remit so much thereof as, in the opinion of the court, was wrongfully obtained.

2. DAMAGES (§ 158)—PERSONAL INJURIES— ELEMENTS OF RECOVERY.

Where, in an action for injuries, there was no prayer for punitive damages, nor evidence as to medical bills and expenses, plaintiff's recovery was limited to reasonable compensation for his injuries and suffering, present and future, and loss of earnings incident to his permanent disability to follow his calling.

3. DAMAGES (§ 132)—EXCESSIVENESS—PERSONAL INJURIES.

Plaintiff, a miner, broke his leg, split his knee, and injured his rib, making it necessary for him to remain in bed two months, and leaving him wtih a permanently disabled leg, which was painful, a habit of spitting blood from a permanent injury to his rib, and inability to ever again follow his occupation as a miner. He was 53 years old and married when injured. Two physicians testified that the action of his kneejoint was gone, and that the rib had loosened from its attachments, causing acute concussion of the left lung and intense pain. Held, that a verdict allowing him $12,000 was excessive and should be reduced to $7,000.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

Action by John Domineck against the Western Coal & Mining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed, on condition.

Plaintiff's petition states that he was a coal miner who was injured by being negligently lowered in one of defendant's mines in a cage not provided with safeguards, and descending at a greater speed than provided by law. R. S. 1899, § 8811, 8812, amended; R. S. 1909, §§ 8456, 8457.

Defendant answered: First, a general denial; second, that the statutes on which the action is founded are violative of the federal Constitution, as being class legislation, taking its property without due process, and deprivative of the equal protection of the laws.

On the trial, plaintiff gave evidence that he had been a coal miner for 9 years; was 53 years of age and married at the time of his injuries, which were caused by the action of defendant's representative in negligently lowering a car in which plaintiff was being carried to the bottom of defendant's mine, 180 feet below the surface of the earth, and by the further fact that the cage was not furnished with the safeguards, nor conducted within the speed, fixed by the statutes, by reason of which negligence, plaintiff was thrown upon the bottom of the shaft with such violence as to break his leg, split his knee, and injure his rib, causing him to be in bed two months, and leaving him on the day of the trial with a permanently disabled leg, then...