Hertz v. McDowell

• Decision Date: 08 November 1948
• Docket Number: 40698
• Citation: 214 S.W.2d 546,358 Mo. 383
• Parties: Lyde H. Hertz, Executrix, Respondent, v. Wallace G. McDowell, Clara M. McDowell, and Edward B. Daugherty, doing business as McDowell Tire Company, and George Howard Brown, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

214 S.W.2d 546

358 Mo. 383

Lyde H. Hertz, Executrix, Respondent, v. Wallace G. McDowell, Clara M. McDowell, and Edward B. Daugherty, doing business as McDowell Tire Company, and George Howard Brown, Appellants

No. 40698

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 8, 1948

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Ben Terte, Judge.

Affirmed.

Henry W. Buck, W. H. Hoffstot and Morrison, Nugent, Berger, Hecker & Buck for appellants.

(1) Instruction B failed to specifically instruct the jury on the vital issue of plaintiff's life expectancy. McCord v Schaff, 279 Mo. 558, 216 S.W. 320; Stevens v. Kansas City L. & P. Co., 200 Mo.App. 651, 208 S.W. 630; Parsons v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 286, 6 S.W. 464; Arkell v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 131 S.W.2d 590; McGowan v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co., 109 Mo. 518 19 S.W. 199; Coleman v. Himmelberger-Harrison Land & Lbr Co., 105 Mo.App. 254, 79 S.W. 981; Smith v. Ozark Water Mills Co., 215 Mo.App. 129, 238 S.W. 573; Morton v. Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co., 280 Mo. 360, 217 S.W. 831; Steger v. Meehan, 63 S.W.2d 109; Cervillo v. Manhattan Oil Co., 226 Mo.App. 1090, 49 S.W.2d 183; Heath v. Salisbury Home Tel. Co., 27 S.W.2d 31; Mayberry v. Iron Mountain Co., 211 Mo.App. 610, 249 S.W. 161; Ward v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 311 Mo. 92, 277 S.W. 908; Jenkins v. Wabash Ry. Co., 232 Mo.App. 438, 107 S.W.2d 204; Stottle v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 321 Mo. 1190, 18 S.W.2d 433; Simpson v. St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co., 334 Mo. 1126, 70 S.W.2d 904; Crabtree v. Kurn, 351 Mo. 628, 173 S.W.2d 851. (2) Instruction B was erroneous in submitting the matter of aggravating circumstances. Mauzy v. J.D. Carson Co., 189 S.W.2d 829; Gerran v. Minor, 192 S.W.2d 57; State ex rel. Kurn v. Hughes, 348 Mo. 177, 153 S.W.2d 46; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 195 S.W. 722; Evans v. Illinois Central Ry. Co., 289 Mo. 493, 233 S.W. 397; Rains v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. 164; Nichols v. Winfrey, 79 Mo. 544; Parsons v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 286, 6 S.W. 464; Williams v. Excavating & Foundation Co., 230 Mo.App. 973, 93 S.W.2d 123; Lochmoeller v. Kiel, 137 S.W.2d 625; Menard v. Goltra, 328 Mo. 368, 40 S.W.2d 1053. (3) The court committed reversible error in refusing defendants' Instruction 2 submitting plaintiff's life expectancy and her measure of damages. Morton v. Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co., 280 Mo. 360, 217 S.W. 831; Simpson v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 334 Mo. 1126, 70 S.W.2d 904; Stottle v. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 321 Mo. 1190, 18 S.W.2d 433; Collins v. Star Paper Mill Co., 143 Mo.App. 333, 127 S.W. 641; Stevens v. Kansas City L. & P. Co., 200 Mo.App. 651, 208 S.W. 630; Bright v. Thatcher, 202 Mo.App. 301, 215 S.W. 788; Newell v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 205 Mo.App. 543, 226 S.W. 80; Steger v. Meehan, 63 S.W.2d 109; Cervillo v. Manhattan Oil Co., 226 Mo.App. 1090, 49 S.W.2d 183; Crabtree v. Kurn, 351 Mo. 628, 173 S.W.2d 851; McCord v. Schaff, 279 Mo. 558, 216 S.W. 320; Arkell v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 131 S.W.2d 590. (4) The verdict of $ 7000 to 90 year old plaintiff with expectancy of only 1.42 years is clearly excessive. Edwards v. Bell, 103 S.W.2d 315; Marx v. Parks, 39 S.W.2d 570; Dugdale v. St. Joseph Ry., L.H. & P. Co., 195 Mo.App. 243, 189 S.W. 830; Evens v. Terminal R. Assn., 69 S.W.2d 929; Kamer v. M-K-T R. Co., 32 S.W.2d 1075; Gerran v. Minor, 192 S.W.2d 57; Sachse v. Highland Dairy Farms Co., 45 S.W.2d 934; O'Brien v. Rindskopf, 334 Mo. 1233, 70 S.W.2d 1085; Bagley v. St. Louis, 268 Mo. 259, 186 S.W. 966; Gude v. Weick Bros. Undertaking Co., 322 Mo. 778, 16 S.W.2d 59; Parsons v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 286, 6 S.W. 464.

Albert L. Reeves, Jr., Henry I. Eager, Kenneth E. Midgley, and Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley for respondent.

(1) Plaintiff's Instruction B was proper. It was unnecessary for this instruction to make more specific reference to plaintiff's life expectancy, and the measure of damages was made sufficiently clear. Steger v. Meehan, 63 S.W.2d 109; Morton v. S.W. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 280 Mo. 360, 217 S.W. 831; Adams v. Thompson, 178 S.W.2d 779; Newell v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 205 Mo.App. 543, 226 S.W. 80; Polk v. Krenning, 2 S.W.2d 107; Perryman v. Mo. Pac. R., 326 Mo. 176, 31 S.W.2d 4; Sing v. St. L. & S.F. Ry., 30 S.W.2d 37; Dalton v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 188 Mo.App. 529, 174 S.W. 468; Troxell v. DeShon, 279 S.W. 438; Stevens v. K.C. Light & Power Co., 200 Mo.App. 651, 208 S.W. 630. (2) The submission of the question of "mitigating and aggravating circumstances" to the jury was entirely proper, both in substance and form. Adams v. Thompson, 178 S.W.2d 779; Treadway v. United Rys. Co., 282 S.W. 441; Marlow v. Nafziger Baking Co., 333 Mo. 790, 63 S.W.2d 115; Williams v. Excavating & Foundation Co., 230 Mo.App. 973, 93 S.W.2d 123; Cox v. Terminal R. Assn., 331 Mo. 910, 55 S.W.2d 685; Dalton v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 188 Mo.App. 529, 174 S.W. 468; Polk v. Krenning, 2 S.W.2d 107. Bloomcamp v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 208 Mo.App. 464, 236 S.W. 388; Kamoss v. K.C. & W.B. Ry., 202 S.W. 434; Roques v. Butler County R. Co., 264 S.W. 474; Garrett v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 216 Mo.App. 21, 267 S.W. 91. (3) Instruction 2 requested by defendants was properly refused by the trial court. Because it specifically (and improperly) referred to the figures in the American Experience Table of Mortality without cautioning the jury that such table was not binding upon them. Stevens v. Kansas City L. & P. Co., 200 Mo.App. 651, 208 S.W. 630; Davis v. Springfield Hospital, 196 S.W. 104; Lithegner v. St. Louis, 125 S.W.2d 925. (4) Because it would have erroneously excluded consideration of aggravating circumstances, and would also have excluded consideration of the pecuniary value of the services of decedent. Jenkins v. Wabash Ry., 232 Mo.App. 438, 107 S.W.2d 204; Arkell v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 131 S.W.2d 590. (5) The amount of the verdict was not excessive, and this court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the jury. Marlow v. Nafziger Baking Co., 333 Mo. 790, 63 S.W.2d 115; Bright v. Thatcher, 202 Mo.App. 301, 215 S.W. 788; Ponticello v. Liliensiek, 83 S.W.2d 150; Polk v. Krenning, 2 S.W.2d 107; Steger v. Meehan, 63 S.W.2d 109; Moses v. K.C. Public Service Co., 188 S.W.2d 538; Petty v. K.C. Public Service Co., 191 S.W.2d 653; Young v. Terminal R. Assn., 192 S.W.2d 402; Marshall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 196 S.W.2d 435.

Van Osdol, C. Bradley and Dalton, CC., concur.

OPINION

VAN OSDOL

Lyde H. Hertz instituted this action as executrix of the will of her son Alfred W. Hertz for his wrongful death. Sections 3653 and 3654 R.S. 1939, Mo. R.S.A. Alfred W. Hertz, a bachelor 62 years old, died as a result of injuries sustained at the intersection of 12th and Walnut Streets, Kansas City, when he was struck by a truck owned by defendants-appellants, McDowell and Daugherty, and driven by their employee, defendant-appellant Brown. The jury returned a verdict for the executrix awarding $ 7000 damages. The defendants appealed to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, seeking the reversal of the ensuing judgment on the assigned grounds the trial court had committed errors in giving and refusal of instructions, which errors, defendants-appellants contended, resulted in an award of excessive damages. The Kansas City Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment (203 S.W. 2d 500); however, upon dissent of Cave, P.J., the case was transferred to this court where we may finally determine the cause as if here on original appeal. Section 10, Article V. Constitution of Missouri, 1945.

The original plaintiff, Lyde H. Hertz, executrix, a widow, mother of deceased, died January 14, 1948, and by order of this court the administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of the estate of deceased, Alfred W. Hertz, has been substituted as party plaintiff-respondent.

The administrator will be hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff," and defendants-appellants as "defendants."

It will be unnecessary to here fully restate the evidence which has been fully, fairly and accurately stated in the opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals, although we will make some references to the evidence in connection with our rulings upon the contentions of the parties.

Defendants assert plaintiff's Instruction B on the measure of damages was erroneous. It is contended the instruction (a) failed to include advice to the jury on the issue of the mother's life expectancy and (b) was erroneous in submitting circumstances of aggravation. The instruction reads as follows,

"The court instructs the jury if your verdict is for plaintiff then in fixing the damages you will take into consideration the age of deceased's mother and any pecuniary loss which you believe from the evidence she sustained as a direct result of the death of her son, and in fixing the damages, you may take into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant upon the fatal injuring of deceased and your verdict if for plaintiff will be in such sum as a whole stated in one lump sum as you believe from the evidence will represent fair and reasonable compensation for the aforesubmitted pecuniary loss so sustained, but your verdict may not exceed $ 10,000.00.

"The court mentions this amount solely because such is the maximum recovery in a death action and because such is the amount sued for."

(a) Defendants emphasize the facts that the mother at the time of her son's death was 89 years old and, according to the American Experience Table of Mortality (see Section 5968 R.S 1879) introduced into evidence by defendants, the mother had an "expectation of life" of but 1.69 years, and of but 1.42 at the age of 90 when the cause was tried. Defendants say the mother's life expectancy was the "vital issue," and the jury should have been...