Konieczka v. Mt. Clemens Metal Products Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1960
• Docket Number: Nos. 19,20,s. 19
• Citation: 360 Mich. 500,104 N.W.2d 202
• Parties: Theodore A. KONIECZKA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MT. CLEMENS METAL PRODUCTS CO., a Michigan corporation, and Leon Kiel, Defendants and Appellants. Antoinette KONIECZKA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MT. CLEMENS METAL PRODUCTS CO., a Michigan corporation, and Leon Kiel, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 202

104 N.W.2d 202

360 Mich. 500

Theodore A. KONIECZKA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MT. CLEMENS METAL PRODUCTS CO., a Michigan corporation, and Leon Kiel, Defendants and Appellants.

Antoinette KONIECZKA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MT. CLEMENS METAL PRODUCTS CO., a Michigan corporation, and Leon Kiel, Defendants and Appellants.

Nos. 19, 20.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 11, 1960.

John P. Murphy, Jr., Saginaw, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Stanton & MacKenzie, Saginaw, for defendants and appellants.

Before the Entire Bench.

KAVANAGH, Justice.

Antoinette Konieczka sues for injuries sustained in an automobile accident of admitted responsibility by the defendants. Her husband, Theodore A. Konieczka, sues for hospital and medical expenses and loss of services. The two cases were consolidated for trial purposes. The jury returned verdicts of $8,000 for Antoinette Konieczka and $7,000 for her husband. The accident occurred on May 3, 1954. Antoinette was riding as a passenger in an automobile which was involved in an intersection accident. She was thrown from the car, landing on the pavement. She was unconscious for about 5 minutes and was lying 6 inches to a foot from the wheel of defendant corporation's truck which had been involved in the accident. She was treated for injuries following the accident, which injuries consisted of a laceration of the right knee, 3 inches in length; lacerations of the right elbow, 1 1/2 inches in lenght; abrasions of the skin of the right arm and on the right hip; and posterior fractures of the right sixth, seventh and eighth ribs. She was hospitalized for three or four days; was in bed at home for a week; and was up and around the house following that week. She was discharged as cured by Dr. Brender during August of 1954. About three months after the accident the plaintiff wife became highly nervous and, though she had never smoked before, began to smoke heavily. She complained of severe headaches and was treated by several doctors from October 5, 1954. In January, 1957, Dr. Skowronski hospitalized her for treatment of hypertension and hypersclerotic heart disease. In November, 1957, she was hospitalized for the tests to confirm diagnosis of bronchiectasis, and later the same month was re-admitted for an operation for a lobectomy. Plaintiff stopped smoking while in the hospital for the lobectomy operation and continued to refrain from smoking until hospitalized for hysteria in January, 1958.

The sole issue at the trial was the extent of plaintiff's injuries. Defendants admit that plaintiff Antoinette Konieczka suffered three broken ribs and various bruises and contusions but deny that recovery should extend beyond a period of three months following the accident. Doctors testified both as to the treatment and possibility of causal connection of the accident to the nervousness and the lobectomy.

At the close of plaintiffs' testimony, a motion was made by defendants to strike the medical testimony. Defendants claim the medical testimony should be stricken because it amounts to pure speculation and conjecture and, therefore, did not support plaintiffs' cause of action. Defendants rely upon their contention that the doctors did not know whether the lung condition existed at the time of the accident. They further claim that the doctors' testimony only showed the anxiety might have caused the woman to smoke. They further claim the testimony of the doctors indicated the smoking might possibly aggravate a preexisting lung condition. Defendants contend the best that could be said for the doctor's testimony was that the lung operation might not have been necessary if plaintiff wife had not been a heavy smoker. Defendants also claim the doctors are, therefore, basing a possibility upon a possibility and that as such it is not properly admissible evidence on which a jury should be allowed to speculate and conjecture.

Plaintiffs, in opposition, argue that the testimony of the doctor who had treated plaintiff prior to the accident and all the lay witnesses was to the effect that plaintiff wife was a healthy, normal woman prior to the accident; that the testimony discloses she became extremely nervous following the accident; and that she began smoking heavily and developed the bronchiectasis and related lung condition which necessitated the lobectomy. It is plaintiffs' contention that the accident set in motion the series of events which were the result of the accident.

The motion to strike the testimony of the doctors was denied. The cases were submitted to the jury, with resulting verdicts. Motions for new trials were made and denied.

Defendants appeal alleging 3 questions:

1) Is the verdict of the jury as to damages arrived at by basing a possibility upon a possibility or an inference upon an inference?

2) Did the trial court err in failing to grant defendants' motion to strike medical testimony relative to the plaintiff's lung condition?

3) Are the verdicts in these two cases excessive?

An examination of the appendices and transcript discloses there is considerable testimony with reference to the before and after condition of plaintiff Antoinette Konieczka both by lay people and by doctors. Before discussing this testimony, we point out that Langworthy v. Green Township, 88 Mich. 207, 50 N.W. 130, established the right of lay people to testify as to a person's ability to do as good a day's work after getting hurt as before. In that case both witnesses had worked with plaintiff before and after the injury. The Court ruled their testimony was competent, saying (88 Mich. at page 214, 50 N.W. at page 132):

'These men had had opportunities for observation and to make comparisons. They saw him at work, witnessed his movements, and observed the volume of work done. The question involved no matter exclusively within the domain of medical science. Indeed, the testimony of these men, as to the matters to which it related was of a higher and better quality than that of a physician.'

Several other Michigan cases have held that 'before and after' lay testimony is competent evidence. Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49; Kuney v. Dutcher, 56 Mich. 308, 22 N.W. 866; Young v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 56 Mich. 430, 23 N.W. 67; Harris v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 76 Mich. 227, 42 N.W. 1111; Olson v. Village of Manistique, 110 Mich. 656, 68 N.W. 986; Matthews v. Lamberton, 198 Mich. 746, 165 N.W. 748; LaDue v. Lebanon Township, 222 Mich. 301, 192 N.W. 636; Gibson v. Traver, 328 Mich. 698, 44 N.W.2d 834.

The record discloses Mrs. Konieczka testified she complained of internal pain after she arrived at the hospital; that her chest pain continued from the time of the accident until the time of the operation on November 20, 1957; that she began to cough shortly after having visited Dr. Brender; that she was not at all nervous before the accident compared to her nervousness subsequent to it; that she was never afraid prior to the accident, but is now afraid of everything; that she never smoked prior to the accident; that because of her fear she cannot sleep properly; that she does not go shopping; that she does not go to parties or social gatherings because of her fear; that she attempted to stop smoking but was unable to do so except for the period of time from her lung operation until her nervous breakdown in January, 1958.

Mrs. Romaine Szewczyk, a daughter, testified her mother had excellent health before the accident, but had gone down hill rapidly after the accident; that she had become very nervous and had unfounded fears; that she had a good temperament prior to her accident, but is now temperamental and moody and refuses to attend weddings and social gatherings...