Morris v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 46 S.W. 170,144 Mo. 500
• Parties: MORRIS v. GRAND AVE. RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 24 May 1898
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

46 S.W. 170

144 Mo. 500

MORRIS v. GRAND AVE. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 24, 1898.

DAMAGES — PERSONAL INJURIES — APPEAL — PRESUMPTIONS.

1. The value of medical treatment necessitated by a personal injury, but for which no charge was made, is not an element of recovery for the wrong.

2. Where the jury was instructed to consider an improper item in awarding damages to plaintiff for a personal injury, their verdict for him is presumed to have included it.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; John W. Henry, Judge.

Action by Thomas Morris against the Grand Avenue Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. Reversed.

Karnes, Holmes & Krauthoff and Frank Hagerman, for appellant. Gage, Ladd & Small, for respondent.

ROBINSON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in a personal injury suit against defendant, a cable street-railway company. As the one question to be considered in this opinion relates to the giving of an instruction in behalf of plaintiff on the measure of his damages, no necessity arises for giving the evidence in detail, further than to say that after plaintiff received his injuries he was taken to, and treated at, the Sisters' Hospital at Kansas City; that one Dr. Bedford, who was not plaintiff's physician, called Dr. Griffith to attend upon plaintiff; and that he did so throughout his trouble, and during his entire stay at the hospital. There was nothing to show, directly, Dr. Griffith's relation to the hospital, except from what may be inferred from the fact that when the plaintiff went the second time to the hospital, for further treatment, Dr. Griffith again appeared and treated him, without being especially called for by plaintiff, or by any one in his behalf, so far as the record shows. When Dr. Griffith was asked the question by plaintiff's counsel, "What is the amount of your bill against Mr. Morris, doctor?" he answered: "About two hundred and eighty-one dollars, sir; that is, if I was going to charge anything." The particular grievance complained of by appellant is that the court told the jury that, in estimating plaintiff's damages, they should take into consideration "all expenses paid or incurred by him for medicine, and the services of Dr. Griffith, as shown by the evidence," when the testimony disclosed the fact that he had neither paid, nor was he liable, for any services of the doctor. The respondent, to maintain the judgment in his favor, contends that it was not necessary, in order to recover the equivalent of the value of the services of the attending physician, that plaintiff show that he had paid for the services, or that he was liable therefor, but that a showing that the services were made necessary by reason of defendant's negligence, and their value established, entitled plaintiff to a judgment therefor. And, again, that even though the court should hold that the instruction, as given, was subject to criticism, or erroneous, still the judgment was manifestly for the right party, under all the evidence, and for that reason should not be reversed.

Some authorities have been cited by respondent taking the broad ground as contended for by him in this case; but we think the holding of this court, as well as the great weight of authority, is against the position, and that the better and more logical rule is that, to entitle a plaintiff to recover for medical services rendered in a case like this, he must show either that he has paid for the services, or is liable therefor; that, in this character of action, plaintiff ought not to be permitted to recover for a loss which he has never sustained. To permit a recovery for medical services for which plaintiff had never paid, nor incurred a liability, would be to abandon, in the first place, the pleadings, and create a new issue not raised therein; for the petition avers "that by reason of said injuries he had been put to great expense for medicines and doctor's bills, and will be at great expense for the same in the future," etc. One of the issues that plaintiff tenders is that, by reason of defendant's negligence, "he has been put to great expense for medicines and doctor's bills, and will be at great expense for the same in the future"; yet upon that issue, and under a state of facts that shows neither the expenditure of, nor liability for, a cent, the trial court told the jury, in estimating plaintiff's damages, that they should take into consideration the services of Dr. Griffith. This is not a case for exemplary damages, but one predicated alone upon the idea of compensation for injuries done and losses sustained. In addition to what the jury might award plaintiff for his suffering and physical injuries, they are authorized to compensate him for his pecuniary losses actually sustained, and not those that might or would have occurred but for the interposition of others through kindness or charity.

While in none of the reported cases in this state has the issue been raised and presented just as in this, the reasoning of our courts in disposing of cases...