Lange v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 41829
| Decision Date | 13 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 41829,No. 2,41829,2 |
| Citation | 361 Mo. 74,233 S.W.2d 641 |
| Parties | LANGE v. ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Douglas, John O. Hichew and William G. Guerri, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Casey, Gilbert Weiss and Roberts P. Elam, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
In the circuit court of the city of St. Louis the jury returned a verdict in favor of respondent and against appellant in the sum of $27,500.00. The amount of the verdict was reduced to $18,500.00 by a remittitur of $9,000.00 entered by respondent in response to an order of the circuit court.
The only assignment of error as stated by appellant in its brief is that 'the verdict and judgment for damages in the sum of $18,500.00 is grossly excessive.' During the oral argument of this case the court raised the question of its jurisdiction. The parties have filed additional briefs, at the court's suggestion, concerning the jurisdiction of this court.
Since we are a court of limited jurisdiction, our jurisdiction on the ground of the amount in dispute attaches when, and only when, the record of the trial court affirmatively shows that there is involved, independent of all contingencies, an amount exceeding $7,500.00 exclusive of costs. Consequently, such jurisdiction must so appear at the time the appeal is taken; nothing that subsequently occurs may be invoked either to confer jurisdiction on this court or to deprive it of jurisdiction. McGregory v. Gaskill, 317 Mo. 122, 296 S.W. 123; Stuart v. Stuart, 320 Mo. 486, 8 S.W.2d 613.
The motion for a new trial in the case at bar stated that the trial court erred in admitting and excluding certain evidence, in giving instructions at respondent's request, and in denying its request for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. Thus, it clearly appears that this court had jurisdiction at the time the appeal was taken. We therefore hold we have jurisdiction of this appeal.
Is the judgment of $18,500.00 excessive? While the evidence is conflicting on this issue, we must consider only the evidence and inferences most favorable to the respondent. Hilton v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 227 S.W.2d 675.
The evidence most favorable to respondent in regard to her injuries are that she was a passenger on a bus operated by the appellant on February 24, 1948, and that while she was in the act of alighting from this bus the door suddenly closed, catching her and throwing her to the ground. The bus dragged her as far as eighteen feet. Prior to this injury she worked in the sewing room of the Karol Kell Garment Company and her average earnings amounted to approximately $132.00 per month. She was about 44 years old at the time of the injury.
Immediately after the accident she was taken to the City Hospital where her back was X-rayed. The X-ray failed to disclose any fracture but she was advised to remain there for observation. This she refused to do but went immediately to her family physician, Dr. Louis R. Wentzel, for further treatment. When she arrived there she was greatly confused and dizzy, and her physician thought she had possibly suffered 'some intracranial injuries * * * a mild concussion * * * a shaking of the brain; a jarring of the brain.'
An examination of respondent disclosed that she had sustained multiple lacerations, abrasions and contusions of her head, legs, ankle and back, and a severe large contusion of the left lower back near the hip joint. She complained of pain in her head, neck and back. The following morning her neck was so sore and stiff that she was unable to get out of bed. At the trial which was held twenty months later her neck was still stiff, with a grinding sensation when she moved her neck; she had pains in her back. She was still taking treatments from her family physician. She was in good health prior to the accident, though she was treated by this physician for fever about two years prior to the date of her injuries. On account of her injuries she was unable to work at her employment as a power machine operator or to do her house work.
On advice of her family physician she went to Dr. F. A. Pernod, a surgeon, about six months after she was injured, and he treated her regularly from that time up to the time of trial. Dr. Pernod testified that the respondent has and had extreme spasticity and rigidity of her neck and some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Yellow Cab Co. of Springfield
...evidence. Morgan v. Thompson, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 794, 798(3); Riggs v. Metcalf, Mo., 315 S.W.2d 791, 796(6); Lange v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 74, 233 S.W.2d 641, 642(3). Obviously, the maximum award permissible under the evidence in a given case is not susceptible of determinatio......
-
McCaffery v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...Mo.App., 22 S.W.2d 199.2 Cited by defendant: Arno v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 356 Mo. 584, 202 S.W.2d 787; Lange v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 74, 233 S.W.2d 641; Osburn v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 360 Mo. 813, 230 S.W.2d 856; Carpenter v. Wabash R. Co., 335 Mo. 130, 71......
-
State v. Woods
...(Mo. banc 1958); State v. McKnight, 486 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.1972); Garrett v. State, 486 S.W.2d 272 (Mo.1972) ; Lange v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 74, 233 S.W.2d 641 (1950) If the conclusion reached in the Garrett case was erroneous, then presumably each and every appeal decided in a......
-
Johnson v. Duensing, 47080
...is taken. Hemphill v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 304 S.W.2d 7, 8(3); Haley v. Horwitz, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 796, 798; Lange v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 233 S.W.2d 641(1). We determine the issue of jurisdiction by an examination of the entire record presented for review. Vordick v. Vordi......