Heckert v. St. Louis Hockey Club

• Decision Date: 02 February 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21770.,21770.
• Citation: 45 S.W.2d 869
• Parties: HECKERT v. ST. LOUIS HOCKEY CLUB, Inc.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

45 S.W.2d 869

HECKERT v. ST. LOUIS HOCKEY CLUB, Inc.

No. 21770.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 2, 1932.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Margaret Sue Heckert, a minor, by Katherine Heckert, her next friend, against the St. Louis Hockey Club, Incorporated. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Strubinger & Tudor, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Stout & Spencer, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

Plaintiff filed her action by next friend for damages for injuries sustained while a patron skating at defendant's ice rink, as the result of her stumbling and falling against a glass partition separating the ice portion of the rink used for skating, from other parts of the building.

At the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,750. Appellant, plaintiff below, urges here that the court erred and abused its discretion in sustaining defendant's motion for a new trial for the failure of the plaintiff to remit the sum of $1,000 from the verdict of the jury. In support of this contention it is argued that the verdict of the jury is not excessive.

Appellant in her brief states that:

The "injuries suffered by this plaintiff briefly summarized were two bruises on her left hip, which bothered her only for about a week and a half, being painful during that time when plaintiff chanced to bring her hip in contact with any foreign object, and a jagged wound on the left wrist, described as being one inch long, irregular in shape and the points about half an inch wide and down to, but not including the ligaments. The permanent result of this injury was a scar, about half an inch in length on plaintiff's wrist.

"The disabling effect of the injury, according to the testimony, was that for five weeks plaintiff was not able to use her left arm or hand for even so much as lifting a fork at the table and that for seven or eight months she did not fully regain her grip in the hand so that she could grasp things with it.

"The evidence further showed that part of the school course required of the plaintiff was to take part in certain gymnasium exercise, such as exercising on the gymnasium rings, poles and horizontal bars and similar exercises; also in indoor and outdoor baseball games, and that these exercises are in the course of study which the plaintiff was supposed to take unless excused, based upon a doctor's permit. The evidence further showed that although the injury was suffered November 30, 1928, up to the end of the school year, in June, 1930, the plaintiff had not been able to take part in the course of gymnastics required by the school, for the reason that exercising her left hand and arm resulted in a numb feeling there and a tingling sensation and pain in the part. That she had tried at times to take the exercises, but her hand would become weak, she would have a tingling sensation and pain, and she would have to drop out.

"The evidence further showed that the evening of the injury she became nauseated, had two vomiting spells and suffered from terrible headaches. That when the plaintiff endeavored to take part in certain games, such as tennis, she had a tired feeling in her left hand. That she had severe pain in the injured part for about five weeks.

"As to the fourteen or fifteen medical treatments given the plaintiff covering a period of from four to five weeks, it was shown by the testimony that to properly heal a wound of this character it was necessary to keep the wound open, and that in doing this, at each treatment the doctor used a fine instrument to open the wound up so that it would heal from the inside; that such treatment was necessary because of the possibility of an infection developing and the danger of tetanus. It was further shown that such treatment caused pain."

Appellant argues that the evidence set out above, relating to the injuries suffered by plaintiff, shows that the plaintiff was entitled to a substantial award for damages, and that the sum of $1,750 awarded her in the verdict of the jury was clearly not excessive, and that the learned trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion for a new trial, and abused its discretion in so doing. In support of this contention the appellant cites a number of cases which we have examined. In our view those cases do not support plaintiff's contention, and in fact support the action of the trial court in requiring a remittitur.

In the case of Walke v. Premier Pocahontas Collieries...