Mantz v. Southwest Freight Lines, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 March 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 50076,No. 1,50076,1 |
Citation | 377 S.W.2d 414 |
Parties | John MANTZ, (Plaintiff) Respondent, v. SOUTHWEST FREIGHT LINES, INC., a Corporation, (Defendant) Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Guilfoil, Caruthers, Symington & Montrey, John P. Montrey, Gerald M. Smith, St. Louis, for appellant.
Everett Hullverson, St. Louis, Terence M. O'Brien, kansas City, hullverson, Richardson & Hullverson, St. Louis, for respondent.
Action for damages for personal injuries, verdict for plaintiff for $300,000.00; and after remittitur of $50,000.00 judgment was entered for $250,000.00. Defendant has appealed and has briefed two points: 1--Error in not granting defendant a new trial because of the failure of juror Gilliam to disclose on voir dire examination her pending claim against St. Louis Public Service Company; 2--The judgment as entered by the trial court is grossly excessive.
Plaintiff was driving a 1954 Ford pickup truck, with camper body, east toward Rolla on U. S. Highway 66, a divided highway, two lanes in each direction with a 40-foot median strip between, and was struck from the rear by defendant's 1956 International diesel tandem tractor coupled to a flat 58 Holland empty trailer. As to the issues on liability, defendant says: The record supports this statement but plaintiff's evidence was that all his 'lights were on and working good.' There were also two reflectors on the rear of his truck.
As to its first point, defendant correctly says 'where a juror intentionally conceals information sought on the voir dire examination, a new trial must be granted if liability is disputed.' See Piehler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 357 Mo. 866, 211 S.W.2d 459, 463. Defendant claims 'the facts in the record establish conclusively that juror Gilliam intentionally concealed her pending claim when interrogated on voir dire examination.' This trial began December 3, 1962. On November 11, 1961, Mrs. Gilliam fell and sprained her ankle, stepping into a depression in the street, while alighting from a bus operated by the St. Louis Public Service Company. She said she used crutches for three weeks because of this injury. The insurance company which covered the bus company sent an adjuster to see her but by the time the adjuster had reached her she had already hired a lawyer and had had executed a contingent fee contract with a lawyer, which said he was 'to represent her in a claim against St. Louis Public Service Company and the City of St. Louis.'
On the voir dire, plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Hullverson, first stated it was quite important to know 'whether anybody has ever been sued in any sort of lawsuit * * * or he may have sued somebody.' He first asked if any juror 'ever had a lawsuit filed against you * * * ever had a claim made against you'; and then asked, 'Have you ever filed a lawsuit against anybody?' One juror said he had filed a suit about an automobile accident which was settled. Another juror said he filed a suit in a dog bite case in which he obtained a judgment. Plaintiff's attorney getting no further response then asked: After no response and other questions, defendant's attorney asked plaintiff's attorney: 'Did you ask if anybody ever had any claims that never went to court?' Plaintiff's attorney then said: 'Yes, I wanted to know even the claims'; and a juror said he had made claims twice when his car had been hit and had settled both of them satisfactorily. Plaintiff's attorney then said: Thereafter, defendant's attorney asked: The only response was from the juror who had told about his automobile accident and who said his wife was with him on that occasion and was injured slightly.
At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Mrs. Gilliam said this was her first jury service and testified as follows:
Mrs. Gilliam said she had telephoned her lawyer's office several times without reaching him but had not seen him since she signed the contract and had last talked to him on the phone in August 1962. Her lawyer said he sent a lien letter to the Public Service Company but never discussed settlement. He said:
Begley v. Adaber Realty & Investment Co., Mo.Sup., 358 S.W.2d 785, 792. See also Barb v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Mo.Sup., 281 S.W.2d 297; Davis v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 233 S.W.2d 679. If the trial court is justified in finding there was no intentional concealment, misrepresentation, deception or prejudice, no abuse of discretion can be found. In Piehler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 357 Mo. 866, 211 S.W.2d 459, 464, the juror involved had made 40 or 50 claims and had one pending against the defendant at the time over a collision of his car with a streetcar because of which he was fined in police court and about which he had the feeling he had been 'railroaded'. We said: 'The plain and only reasonable inference from this record is that juror Prince intentionally concealed the fact, after direct examination on the subject, that in 1943 and 1944 he had a claim against the appellant. In the circumstances 'it is difficult to conceive how that could be harmless error.'' Refusal to grant a new trial in that case clearly was an abuse of discretion. For another case in which we held a new trial should have been granted (because of a juror's indicated prejudice) see Moore v. Middlewest Freightways, Inc., Mo.Sup., 266 S.W.2d 578; and for other cases finding abuse of discretion in not granting a new trial where intentional concealment appeared see Brady v. Black and White Cab Co., Mo.App., 357 S.W.2d 720 ( ); Triplett v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 343 S.W.2d 670 ( ). In other cases cited by defendant, Woodworth v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 274 S.W.2d 264; Girratono v. kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 278, the trial court granted a new trial, this action being affirmed on appeal. As we said in the Woodworth case (274 S.W.2d l. c. 271): '[A]ppellate courts are more liberal in upholding a trial court's action in sustaining a motion for a new trial than in denying it.' In the first place, Mrs. Gilliam's claim was not against the defendant as in the Piehler case. Since it appears that Mrs. Cilliam had been told by her lawyer several months before the trial that filing a lawsuit was not warranted, she reasonably might not expect to get anything for her injury which was not severe; and this could explain her statement that she did not know whether she had a claim or not. Moreover, the jurors who answered the voir dire questions told only about claims that had been sued on or settled. Furthermore, neither lawyer in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wolfe v. Harms
...loss of services, and loss of ability to work. Mrs. Wolfe's injuries are of a gravity comparable to those in Mantz v. Southwest Freight Lines, Inc., Mo., 377 S.W.2d 414, where an award of $250,000, including $41,590 special damages, for a 44-year-old race driver with better than average inc......
- Blair v. City of Hannibal
-
Hodges v. Johnson
...the ultimate test of excessiveness is what amount will fairly and reasonably compensate for the injuries sustained. Mantz v. Southwest Freight Lines, Mo., 377 S.W.2d 414, 420; Parlow v. Carson-Union-May-Stern Company, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 877, Subjecting ourselves to the foregoing precepts and g......
-
Jarrell v. Fort Worth Steel & Mfg. Co.
...on his wife; and, finally, the total destruction of a way of life the Jarrells were accustomed to. Fort Worth cites Mantz v. Southwest Freight Lines, 377 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.1964) as authority for its contention that the jury verdict is out of line with other Missouri verdicts. The Supreme Court......