Myer v. Wells

• Decision Date: 21 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19023.,19023.
• Citation: 293 S.W. 455
• Parties: MYER v. WELLS
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

293 S.W. 455

MYER v. WELLS

No. 19023.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 21, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court, Claude Pearcy, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Clara Myer against Rolla Wells, receiver of the United Railways Company of St. Louis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles W. Bates, T. E. Francis, and Ernest A. Green, all of St. Louis, for appellant. Douglass, Inman & Horsefield, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between defendant's street railway car and a Ford automobile in which plaintiff was riding. The trial, with a Jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $7,500, and defendant appeals.

On a former submission of the cause in this court, we ruled that the learned trial court committed error in allowing plaintiff's counsel in his argument to the jury to remark upon the failure of the defendant to call its passengers as witnesses, and the judgment was accordingly reversed and the cause remanded. A statement of the facts, so far as pertinent to the disposition then made of the case, will be found by reference to the case as reported in 277 S. W. at page 585. On certiorari, the Supreme Court quashed the record of this court (State ex rel. Meyer v. Daues, 285 S. W. 986), and the cause has been again submitted here.

On the present submission, the defendant urges assignments which we did not deem necessary to notice on the former submission, in view of the disposition then made of the case, to wit, (1) that the court erred in the Feb. 21, exclusion of testimony; and (2) that the verdict is excessive.

Relative to the exclusion of testimony, it suffices to say that the defendant made no proffer of the testimony sought to be introduced, and the assignment must be ruled against defendant on that ground.

We have examined the evidence relative to the plaintiff's injuries, and find no cause to disturb the verdict for excessiveness. The evidence shows that as a result of the accident plaintiff suffered injuries to her chest, abdomen, spine, kidneys, bladder, and female organs; that the injury centered itself on the left side, an area extending from about the sixth rib down to the border of the ribs and thorax, involving all the wall on the left side, and extending to the lumbar spine or lower part of the back, and on to the junction of the sacrum or segment or central bone of the back with the...