Meeker v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20489.,20489.
• Citation: 216 S.W. 933
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MEEKER v. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

216 S.W. 933

MEEKER v. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

No. 20489.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 1, 1919.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.

Action by Florence Meeker against the Union Electric Light & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Henry G. Miller and Sam W. Baxter, both of East St. Louis, Ill., and Charles B. Morrow, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SMALL, C.

I. This case is a companion to the case of Prosper H. Meeker, by, etc., v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., 216 S. W. 923, decided by this court en banc, at this term, but not yet officially reported. Both suits grew out of the same injury to Prosper H. Meeker, a boy 14, years of age, and the son of the plaintiff in this case, in being badly burned by electricity from the wires of the defendant in the city of St. Louis.

The pleadings in both cases are the same, except the son's case was for personal injuries he sustained, and this case for loss of his services by the plaintiff during his minority, expenses incurred and sustained, and to be incurred and sustained by the plaintiff, during that time for medical and surgical treatment, medicines, hospital, and nurses' bills, and the like for her son, made necessary by the injuries he received.

The evidence and instructions on the question of defendant's liability for said injuries and their extent, and the extent and character of the medical and surgical treatment he received, stay in the hospital and nursing there and elsewhere, are, in substance, the same in both cases.

In the son's case, this court upheld a verdict for $35,000 in his favor, on account of the most unusual and lamentable character and extent of his injuries. We shall not attempt to restate the case here, but refer to the very full statement thereof contained in the opinion of the court in the son's case. The defendant's liability for the injuries to the son was established in his case, and all the points regarding such liability raised in this case were raised and decided against the appellant in that case. There remains for our consideration in this case, therefore, only matters touching the amount of the verdict complained of by the appellant. The verdict was for the plaintiff for $9,500. The plaintiff in her petition asked for damages as follows: $3,000 for loss of her son's services; $5,000 for money expended and liabilities incurred for the services of physicians and surgeons and nurses, medicines and appliances in hospital; $2,000 for hospital bills; $500 for medicine and appliances at other places than at the hospital; $100 for special diet, and for all money to be expended and liability to be incurred for all such purposes in the future, praying for a total sum of $15,000.

As to the measure of damages, the court, at plaintiff's instance, instructed the jury as follows:

"IV. The court instructs the jury that if under the other instructions you find the issues in this case for the plaintiff, you should assess her damages at such sum as you believe from the evidence will be fair and reasonable pecuniary compensation to her.

"First. For any sum she has necessarily expended or incurred liability for in the treatment of the injuries of her said son, Prosper H. Meeker, directly caused by the negligence of the defendant, as defined in other instructions; for physicians and surgeons, if any, to the reasonable value thereof, not to exceed on that account the sum of $5,000; and for nurses, medicines, and appliances at the hospital and hospital bills, if any, to the reasonable value thereof, not to exceed on that account the sum of $2,000; and for medicines and appliances other than at the hospital, if any, to the reasonable value thereof in a sum not to exceed $500.

"Second. And also for loss of services of her said son during his minority, and until he arrives at the age of 21 years, if any, directly caused by the negligence of the defendant, as defined in these instructions, to the reasonable value thereof, not to exceed on that account the sum of $3,000, and the reasonable expense, if any, of caring for her said son in the future, and during his minority, up to the...