Mississippi Ice & Utilities Co. v. Pearce

• Decision Date: 04 May 1931
• Docket Number: 29361
• Citation: 134 So. 164,161 Miss. 252
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI ICE & UTILITIES CO. v. PEARCE
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

134 So. 164

161 Miss. 252

MISSISSIPPI ICE & UTILITIES CO. v. PEARCE

No. 29361

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 4, 1931

Division A

1 WITNESSES.

Cross-examiner is not bound by testimony of witness on direct examination.

2 TRIAL.

In action for injuries sustained in automobile collision, court properly refused to declare mistrial, where plaintiff in good faith asked physician testifying if he went to hospital to examine plaintiff as representative of insurance company.

3 WITNESSES.

Counsel is not precluded from seeking in good faith on cross-examination to elicit interest, bias, or prejudice of witness because answer may reveal that liability insurance company is interested.

4. WITNESSES.

No witness is exempt from right of fair cross-examination (Code 1930, section 1532).

5. APPEAL AND ERROR.

Supreme Court must assume that Jurors were qualified persons of good intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character.

6. APPEAL AND ERROR.

In determining whether verdict is excessive, question is whether verdict is so out of proportion as to evince passion and prejudice on part of jury to reasonable mind.

7. DAMAGES. Fifteen thousand dollars held not excessive for injuries, causing dislocation of left sacroiliac joint, to woman twenty-eight years of age, earning seventy-five dollars monthly.

Evidence disclosed that plaintiff sustained injury causing dislocation and acute strain of left sacroiliac joint, that injury was of permanent nature, and caused intense pain, and that climbing ladders, stooping and lifting pictures and driving automobile, required by her occupation of selling pictures of art, would reproduce original strained condition, thereby causing pain, that plaintiff had paid more than nine hundred dollars for physicians, nurses, and hospital bills, and that she was still under treatment of physicians at time of trial, within six months of injury, and would require nurse's services for a year.

HON W. A. WHITE, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Harrison county., HON W. A. WHITE, Judge.

Action by Miss Susan Pearce against the Mississippi Ice & Utilities Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

W. Lee Guice, of Biloxi, and Watkins, Watkins & Eager, of Jackson, for appellant.

It is reversible error to permit inference that defendant carried insurance to be presented to jury.

Herrin v. Daly, 80 Miss. 340, 92 Am. St. Rep. 605, 31 So. 790; Galtney v. Wood, 149 Miss. 56, 115 So. 117; Jessup v. Davis, 115 Neb. 1, 211 N.W. 190, 56 A. L. R. 140; Ann. 56, A. L. R. 1418; Watson v. Adams, 65 So. 528; Akin v. Lee, 99 N.E. 85; McCarty v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 232 Ill. 473, 83 N.E. 957; Ronan v. J. G. Turnbull Co., 99 Vt. 280, 131 A. 788; Kerr v. National Fulton Brass Mfg. Co., 155 Mich. 191; Papke v. Haerle, 189 Wis. 156, 207 N.W. 261.

A verdict of fifteen thousand ($ 15,000) dollars under the facts and circumstances in this case is grossly excessive and so excessive as to show prejudice and bias on the part of the jury.

Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Mothershed, 122 Miss. 835, 85 So. 98; Payne v. McNeeley, 123 Miss. 248, 85 So. 197; A. & V. R. R. Co. v. Dennis, 128 Miss. 298, 91 So. 4; N. O., etc., R. R. Co. v. Jackson, 145 Miss. 702, 110 So. 586; City of Greenwood v. Pentecost, 148 Miss. 60, 114 So. 259; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Daily, 127 So. 575; Lebretch v. United Railways Co. of St. Louis, 237 S.W. 112; Swartz v. Drake Realty Const. Co., 109 Neb. 746, 192 N.W. 221; Cullicut v. Burrill, 120 Maine 419, 115 A. 172; N. Texas Traction Co. v. City, 236 S.W. 73, 217 S.W. 730; Roberts v. Chicago City R. R. Co., 205 Ill. 594; Lexington, etc., R. Co. v. Robinsons, 186 Ky. 739, 216 S.W. 86; Carter Coal Co. v. Dozier, 170 Ky. 374, 186 S.W. 140; Burton v. Shaw Transfer Co., 211 Mo.App. 353, 243 S.W. 449; Gillespie v. Cr. N. R. R. CO., 63 Mont. 598, 208 P. 1059; Gilchrist v. Kansas City Railway Co., 254 S.W. 161; Chapman v. Kan. City R. Co., 233 S.W. 177; Knight v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 142 La. 357, 76 So. 799; Joynes v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxi Co., 119 So. 446; Alost v. J. Moock Wood & Drayage Co., 10 La. App. 57, 120, So. 791; McGehee v. Hinds, 12 La. App. 13, 124 So. 846.

Mize, Mize & Thompson, of Gulfport, for appellee.

It is competent for the plaintiff to cross-examine a doctor presented by the defendant as to whether or not he represented an insurance company, when counsel for the plaintiff has been informed by the plaintiff that he stated to plaintiff when ho examined her that he came as the representative of the insurance company.

Galtney v. Wood, 149 Miss. 56; Yazoo City v. Loggins, 145 Miss. 793; Eppinger et al. v. Sheely, 24 F. (2 Ed.) 153; Inga v. Curtis Co., 96 Neb. 18; L. R. A. 1915-C, 153-156; Lbr. Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292.

Regard must be had to the undoubted right of the plaintiff to cross-examine a witness to show interest or bias; it was always the right of the party against whom a witness is called to show by cross-examination that he has an interest, direct or collateral, in the result of the trial, or has such a relation to the party that bias would naturally arise, and this right is not to be abridged or denied because incidentally facts may be developed that are irrelevant to the issue and prejudicial to the other party, for the other party takes a chance when he calls the witness.

Ann. 56 A. L. R. 1439; Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Co., 70 A. 884; Moy Quon v. Furuya Co., 143 P. 99; Snyder v. Wagner Elec. Co., 284 Mo. 285; Jablonowski v. Modern Cap Co., 312 Mo. 173; Lange v. Lawrence, 259 S.W. 261; Wabash Screen Door Co. v. Black, 61 C. C. A. 639, 126 F. 721; Wharton on Evidence, sec. 456; Rogers on Expert Testimony, sec. 37; Jessup v. Davis, 115 Neb. 1.

The verdict is moderate for the injuries sustained, and instead of being excessive it will not and cannot compensate plaintiff for the injuries received.

Y. & M. V. R. R. v. Fletcher, 100 Miss. 589; Eastern Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 106 Miss. 672; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Hays, 136 Miss. 701; Laurel Light Co. v. Jones, 137 Miss. 143; Yazoo City v. Loggins, 145 Miss. 795; M. C. R. R. Co. v. Lott, 118 Miss. 816; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Dees, 121 Miss. 439; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. v. Bridges, 131 So. R. 99; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 64 Miss. 584; Y. & M. V. R. R. v. Wallace, 91 Miss. 492; Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Scott, 95 Miss. 43; M. C. Ry. Co. v. Hardy, 88 Miss. 732; Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Daly, 127 So. 575; Miller v. R. I. Co., 82 A. 787; Terry v. Odell, 26 Ga.App. 102, 105 S.E. 864; R. R. Co. v. McIntosh, 26 Ga.App. 106; Roeder v. Erie Ry. Co., 164 N.Y.S. 167; R. R. Co. v. Combs, 250 S.W. 714; R. R. Co. v. Carnahan, 60 L.Ed. 979; Railroad Co. v. McMicheal, 171 S.W. 115; R. R. Co. v. Harris, 172 S.W. 1129; Birch v. R. R. Co., Ann. Cas. 1912-B, p. 1166; New v. Stout, 227 P. 519; Yukonis v. R. R. Co., 213 F. 537; Hudgins v. R. R. Co., 5 N.C. C. A. 766; Ala. Power Co. v. Goodwin, 106 So. 239; White v. Thornington, 120 So. 914; Mears v. Dixie Creameries, Inc., 120 So. 133; Padrick v. Great Northern R. R. Co., 128 Minn. 228; Knock v. Tonopah R. R. Co., 145 P. 939; St. Louis Ry. Co. Kendall, 169 S.W. 822; Penson v. Indland Empire Paper Co., 73 Wash. 338, 132 P. 29; O'Brien v. White & Co., 105. Me. 308; McCollough v. Ill. Steel Co., 243 Ill. 464, 90 N.E. 664; Kenney v. South Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 119 N.Y.S. 363, 134 A.D. 859; Carr v. American Locomotive Co., 77 A. 104; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Shapard, 118 S.W. 596; Leonard v. Brooklyn Heights Ry. Co., 67 N.Y.S. 985; Terre Haute & I. R. R. Co. v. Skeeks, 155 Ind. 74; Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72; Freeman v. Kane, 133 S.W. 723; In re The Fullerton, 92 C. C. A. 463; Chicago City R. R. Co. v. Hagenback, 228 Ill. 290, 81 N.E. 1014; Champlin v. Pawtucket Valley Ry. Co., 33 R. I. 572; Mo. & K. Telephone Co., 231 Mo. 417, 132 S.W. 712; Murphy v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 124 P. 114; Hill v. Union Elec. Light & P. Co., 169 S.W. 345; Freeman v. Cleary, 136 S.W. 521; Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. Spurney, 97 Ill.App. 570; 197 Ill. 471; Greer v. Great Northern R. Co., 132 N.W. 6; Walters v. Chicago, M. & P. S. R. Co., 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 702; Mo. K. & T. R. Co., v. Lee, 119 S.W. 144; Orbann v. Phila. Traction Co., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 39; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Coy, 168 S.W. 1106; Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Dunn, 106 Ill.App. 195; Smith v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 92 A.D. 213, 86 N.Y.S. 1087; Elgin v. Nofs, 212 Ill. 20, 72 N.E. 43; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Snell, 106 S.W. 170; Mo. K. & T. R. Co. v. Farris, 120 S.W. 535; Morgan v. So. P. R. R. Co. (Calif.), 30 P. 601; Shaw v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 173 Ill.App. 107; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Probandt, 125 S.W. 931; S.W. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Shireley, 155 S.W. 663; Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney, 96 Ky. 89, 27 S.W. 983; Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew (Tex.), 178 S.W. 607; James v. Oakland Traction Co., 103 P. 1082; Tierney v. Sampsell, 172 Ill.App. 119; Lutzer v. St. Paul Table Co., 121 Minn. 254, 141 N.W. 115; Graseth v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 128 Minn. 245, 150 N.W. 804; Geotzke v. Chicago, 174 Ill.App. 446; Kanz v. J. Niels Lumber Co., 131 N.W. 643; Anderson v. Foley Bros., 124 N.W. 987; Herbert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 52 So. 1021; Lynch v. Southern P. Co., 140 P. 298; Richardson v. Spokane, 122 P. 330; Lake Shore & M. S. Co. v. Topliff, 18 Ohio C. C. 709; Wagner v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 180 Ill.App. 196; Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Banfill, 69 N.E. 499; Chicago v. Lesthe, 32 N.E. 428; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Cheek, 53 N.E. 641.

Argued orally by W. L. Guice and W. H. Watkins, for appellant, and by S. C. Mize, for appellee.

OPINION

McGowen, J.

On the 6th day of June, 1930, in the city of Biloxi, Miss Susan Pearce, the appellee, was injured while riding as a...