Houston v. Northup, 55491

• Decision Date: 09 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 55491,55491
• Citation: 460 S.W.2d 572
• Parties: James W. HOUSTON and Phyllis Houston, Respondents, v. Theresa M. NORTHUP, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 572

460 S.W.2d 572

James W. HOUSTON and Phyllis Houston, Respondents, v.Theresa M. NORTHUP, Appellant.

No. 55491.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Nov. 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied and Opinion Modified on Court's Own Motion

Dec. 14, 1970.

Dale, Potter & Flynn, Whitney W. Potter, St. Joseph, for respondents.

Max W. Foust, and Duke W. Ponick, Jr., of Morris, Foust, Moudy & Beckett, and Meyer & Graeff, Robert J. Graeff, Kansas City, for appellant.

Carl F. Sapp, Columbia, Mo. Assn. of Trial Attorneys, amicus curiae.

Eugene E. Andereck, Trenton, Horace S. Haseltine, Springfield, James W. Jeans, Kansas City, John P. Montrey, St. Louis, James E. Reeves, Caruthersville, Donald L. Schlapprizzi, St. Louis, Reed O. Gentry, Kansas City, amicus curiae.

FINCH, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment wherein James W. Houston recovered (on Count I) the sum of $2,000.00 for personal injuries received in an automobile collision and his wife (on Count V) recovered $500.00 for loss of services and consortium.¹The case was affirmed on appeal by the Kansas City Court of Appeals, but we ordered the case transferred and we now decide it as though here on original appeal.Article V, § 10, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.We reverse and remand.

After the jury had deliberated for a time, its foreman sent the following note to the trial judge:

Judge Connett:

InstructionNo. 6 states that 'whether or not Defendant was negligent if you believe:

First, PlaintiffJames W. Houston failed to keep a careful lookout * * *Instruction No. 7 says 'Your verdict must be for plaintiff * * * whether or not plaintiffJames W. Houston was negligent, if you believe * * *

The above instructions seem contradictory--could you please clarify the instructions.

(Signed)Ed Blakeley, Foreman

In response thereto, the court on its own motion, and over the objection of defendant, gave an additional instruction (No. 18) to the jury, as follows:

In response to your question the Court gives you this further instruction:

This case is submitted to you on alternate theories by which the plaintiff may recover from the defendant.Instructions numbered 4, 5 and 6 are applicable to one theory, and Instructions numbered 7 and 8 are applicable to the other theory of recovery.

InstructionNo. 6 refers only to InstructionNo. 4 and has no reference to InstructionNo. 7.

You may note that this same situation applies to Count V.

The single issue presented to us on this appeal is whether the giving of InstructionNo. 18 constituted prejudicial error for which defendant is entitled to a new trial.

James W. Houston submitted his claim on both primary and humanitarian negligence theories.InstructionNo. 4 submitted recovery based on primary negligence.It was a combination of MAI 17.04 and 17.05² in the form prescribed by MAI 17.02 for submission of multiple negligent acts.That instruction (No. 4) was as follows:

Your verdict must be for plaintiff, James W. Houston, on Count I of his petition if you believe:

First: Defendant either:

Failed to keep a careful lookout, or

Defendant knew or by the use of the highest degree of care could have known that there was a reasonable likelihood of collision in time thereafter to have

Stopped

Swerved

Slackened her speed

Slackened her speed and swerved

Sounded a warning

but said defendant failed to do so.

Second: Defendant was thereby negligent, and

Third: As a direct result of such negligence, said plaintiff sustained damage. unless you believe said plaintiff is not entitled to recovery by reason of InstructionNo. 6.

In response to InstructionNo. 4, defendant gave a contributory negligence instruction.It (No. 6) was MAI 32.01, modified pursuant to Note 2 of the Committee's Notes on Use, ³ as follows:

Your finding under Instruction Number 4 must be for Defendant on Count I of Plaintiff's claim for damages whether or not Defendant was negligent if you believe:

First, PlaintiffJames W. Houston failed to keep a careful lookout; and

Second, PlaintiffJames W. Houston's conduct in the respect submitted in paragraph First, was negligent; and Third, Such negligence of PlaintiffJames W. Houston directly caused or directly contributed to cause any damage Plaintiff may have sustained.

Plaintiff's alternative submission of humanitarian negligence based on MAI 17.15⁴ was as follows (No. 7):

Your verdict must be for plaintiff, James W. Houston, on Count I of the petition, whether or not plaintiff, James W. Houston, was negligent, if you believe:

First: Plaintiff, James W. Houston, was in a position of immediate danger of being injured and was injured, and

Second: Defendant knew or by using the highest degree of care could have known of such position of immediate danger, and

Third: At the moment when defendant first knew or could have known of such position of immediate danger, defendant still had enough time so that by using the means available to her, and with reasonable safety to herself and all others and by using the highest degree of care she could have avoided injury to plaintiff by either stopping, sounding a warning, slackening her speed or swerving.

Fourth: Defendant negligently failed to so slacken her speed or swerve, or stop, or sound a warning.

Fifth: Plaintiff's injury directly resulted therefrom.

In response to InstructionNo. 7, defendant gave InstructionNo. 8, a converse instruction based on MAI 33.06(4), as follows:

Your finding must be for defendant under Instruction number 7 on Count I of plaintiffJames W. Houston's claim unless you believe that defendant by using the highest degree of care could have avoided injury to plaintiff by either stopping, sounding a warning, slackening her speed or swerving without danger to herself.

At the outset, we point out that no question is raised as to the correctness of any of the above quoted instructions.It is not contended that they failed to comply literally with MAI.Furthermore, no contention is made that the utilized MAI prescribed instructions are inadequate or unclear in any way.Consequently, we are not confronted with a situation where some error in an instruction has been discovered after the jury has been deliberating.InstructionNo. 18 was not given to correct some error or deficiency in the instructions previously given.Rather, it was given simply in response to the quoted note from the jury foreman.

Something is said in one of the briefs about the emergency created by the juror's question to the court, but we are unable to agree that what occurred constituted an emergency.The jury foreman's note raised a question whether Instructions 6 and 7 conflicted, but the judge could have told the jury that in his opinion the instructions given were proper and all he could give them, and that they should go back and read them again.The instructions given were clear and understandable.No contention to the contrary is asserted, and the experience of several years use of these instructions further so indicates.It was not necessary to give an additional instruction for the purpose of explaining or clarifying the instructions previously given.

Implicit in a scheme of approved pattern instructions such as MAI is the central idea that such instructions do not require further clarification or amplification.They submit ultimate issues and do so adequately.Consequently, we have held in cases such as Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 421 S.W.2d 255, andMurphy v. Land, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 505, that change in the prescribed language other than the authorized modifications is not permissible and constitutes error.⁵Necessarily, it also follows that it is not permissible to modify or enlarge or change or explain MAI instructions by separate instructions not provided for or authorized in MAI.To permit modification, clarification or improvement by separate instructions would be just as objectionable as doing so within the body of the prescribed instructions.If plaintiff had tendered InstructionNo. 18 at the outset, to be given along with Instructions 4, 6, 7 and 8, it is perfectly clear that the court should have refused it under the doctrine of Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Company, Murphy v. Land, and similar cases.If the instruction was not proper or permissible then, it likewise was not permissible or authorized when given.MAI makes no provision for, and does not authorize or contemplate that trial judges will devise additional instructions seeking to explain or amplify instructions which conform to MAI.⁶

We emphasize again that we are not dealing on this appeal with a situation in which, having discovered while the jury was deliberating that an erroneous instruction had been given, the court sought by supplemental instruction to correct that error.Such a situation is not presented and we do not rule thereon.Rather, we deal with a situation as indicated, where the given instructions were correct and no contention was or is made that they were in any way deficient or erroneous or failed to comply with MAI.Under those circumstances, the giving of InstructionNo. 18 was error.

It remains for us to determine, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 70.01(c), V.A.M.R.,...