Hendricks v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1907
• Citation: 101 S.W. 675,124 Mo. App. 157
• Parties: HENDRICKS v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

101 S.W. 675

124 Mo. A. 157

HENDRICKS v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 2, 1907.

1. DEPOSITIONS — NARRATIVE FORM.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2878 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1660], providing that when a witness resides out of the state the party desiring his testimony may sue out of the court or the office of the clerk thereof a commission to take the deposition of the witness, and section 2882 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 2883], providing that the commission shall authorize the officer to whom it is directed to cause the witness to come before him, and shall command such officer to examine the witness touching his knowledge of anything relating to the matter in controversy, the evidence need not be taken on interrogatories, but may be in the narrative form.

2. HUSBAND AND WIFE — ACTION FOR INJURY TO WIFE.

Under the statute, a married woman may recover damages for loss of earnings, past or future, because of a personal injury, though she uses her earnings in the support of her family.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Susan A. Hendricks against the St. Louis Transit Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

On the morning of August 18, 1904, plaintiff, a married woman 67 years of age, in company with nine of her friends, male and female, desiring to attend the Columbian Exposition at St. Louis, placed themselves at the corner of Delmar and De Baliviere avenues, in said city, for the purpose of boarding one of defendant's cars running over De Baliviere avenue to the exposition grounds. Plaintiff's evidence shows that she and her friends were in the proper place to be received by defendant on its cars, and that a car stopped for the purpose of affording them an opportunity to get aboard; that the car was not crowded, and three women of the party got aboard in safety; that plaintiff followed them, and was in the act of getting aboard, had hold of the handrail with her right hand, with one foot on the lower step, when, in response to a signal given by the conductor, the car was started with a sudden jerk, causing plaintiff's foot to slip off the step; that, to save herself from falling on the street, she held to the handrail with her right hand, and was dragged some 8 or 10 feet, when her hold gave way, and she fell upon the street. The evidence shows that the conductor was on the back platform of the car, facing plaintiff, when he gave the signal to start the car. The evidence also shows that, as a result of falling and being dragged by the car, plaintiff's right shoulder was severely sprained; the ligaments and muscles controlling the movements of the arm at the shoulder being torn from their moorings. The evidence further shows that plaintiff suffered excruciating pain, was for weeks unable to sleep, except when under the influence of opiates; that she still suffers more or less pain from the injury and is unable to move her arm at the shoulder; and that this condition will in all probability continue during the remainder of her life. Plaintiff testified that she is a married woman, and before her injury, besides attending to her household duties, earned about $10 a week doing fancy needlework, and that she applied her earnings to the payment of household expenses; her husband being without means and too old and feeble to work. Defendant's evidence tends to show that the car was crowded, and after it had stopped to let passengers off, and after two or three had crowded on, the conductor called out to the others waiting to "take the next car," and at the same moment gave the motorman the signal to go ahead. The conductor testified that he did not see the plaintiff until she fell on the street. Some of defendant's witnesses testified that plaintiff and others ran after the car after it started, and that plaintiff attempted to get on the car while it was in motion. The jury found the issues for plaintiff, and assessed her damages at $2,500. A motion for new trial proving of no avail, defendant transit company appealed.

Boyle & Priest, for appellant. Jos. Wheless, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J. (after stating the facts).

1. Depositions of witnesses residing in the state of Kentucky were taken in narrative form. Defendant moved to quash these depositions because they were not taken on interrogatories. The court overruled this motion, and the depositions were read in evidence. This ruling is assigned as error. There is no rule of law that requires the evidence of witnesses in a civil or criminal case to be taken on interrogatories. It is a common practice to take the evidence of witnesses in the form of questions and answers, but there is no rule enforcing any such practice, nor is it generally preferable to the narrative form. The principal objection to the latter form is that a witness, uninstructed, is prone to relate immaterial or irrelevant matter. This, however, may generally be avoided, if counsel, in apt terms, directs the witness' attention to the issue or issues upon which his evidence is desired. There are two methods, under the laws of this state, by which the deposition of a witness in another state may be taken by any officer authorized by the laws of this state to take such a deposition. First, by suing out of the court, or out of the office of the clerk of the court, where the suit is pending, a commission...