McCombs v. Bowen
Decision Date | 30 April 1934 |
Citation | 73 S.W.2d 300,228 Mo.App. 754 |
Parties | HATTIE McCOMBS, APPELLANT, v. JOHN BOWEN, RESPONDENT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Henry County.--Hon. W. L. P. Burney Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
O. H Swearingen and Dan Johnson for appellant.
Ross E Feaster and Elmer D. Silvers for respondent.
This is an action for wrongful death. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 5,000. In due time defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The motion set forth, among other things, that the court erred in giving plaintiff's Instructions 1 and 2. At a subsequent term the court sustained the motion on the ground that he erred in giving said instructions. Plaintiff has appealed.
The action is brought by the widow. The petition alleges that defendant, John Bowen, was the owner and operator of a coal mine in Henry County; that he employed plaintiff's husband to dig and mine coal therein; that defendant failed to provide a good and sufficient amount of ventilation for the men employed in the mine; that her husband was compelled, as defendant's employee, to work for seven months in said mine without sufficient air and without the ventilation required by law; that because thereof plaintiff's husband was poisoned, made ill and sick; that he died of said illness and poison caused by said insufficient ventilation and insufficient air in the mine; that the illness, sickness and poison of her husband was an occupational disease and did not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The answer, in effect, admits all of the allegations of the petition, save that it denies that plaintiff's husband died from an occupational disease contracted while in the employ of the defendant, alleges that he died of lobar pneumonia and denies that the air condition in the mine, in any way, contributed to said disease.
Plaintiff does not abstract any of the testimony but the bill of exceptions in reference thereto merely states that each party introduced evidence supporting his respective allegations. Respondent has printed an additional abstract of the record which recites that there was one witness who testified that he and plaintiff's husband "went down on the creek fishing the latter part of March, about ten days before deceased died, maybe a week before he took down sick."
Plaintiff's instructions numbered 1 and 2 read as follows:
It is insisted by plaintiff that the court erred in granting a new trial because there was no exception taken to the actions of the court in giving the instructions. Defendant insists that it is not necessary that the record show an exception to the giving of an instruction where the court sustains the motion for a new trial on account of the giving of the same. We think that this contention must be sustained. The rule in reference to a situation of this kind is stated by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in Noren v. Am. School of Osteopathy, 2 S.W.2d 215, 219, as follows:
[See, also, Owens v. K. C. C. C. & St. Jos. Ry. Co., 201 S.W. 548, 550.]
If the court had the power to sustain the motion at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Otto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
-
Allen v. Cascio
...saved to such instruction. Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53, 55 S.W.2d 482; Jones v. Kansas City (Mo.), 76 S.W.2d 340; McCombs v. Bowen, 228 Mo.App. 754, 73 S.W.2d 300; Beaber v. Kurn, 231 Mo.App. 22, 91 S.W.2d Raines v. Small (Mo. App.), 169 S.W.2d 102. (2) The trial court did not err in sustain......