Parks v. United His. Co. of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 06 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 21702.,21702.
• Citation: 235 S.W. 1067
• Parties: PARKS v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOWS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

235 S.W. 1067

PARKS v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOWS.

No. 21702.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 6, 1921.

Motion to Transfer to Court in Banc and to Modify Judgment Overruled July 23, 1921.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; George H. Shields, Judge.

Action by Samuel Parks against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition of remittitur.

The plaintiff instituted this suit in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to recover the sum of $30,000 damages for personal injuries sustained by him through the negligence of the defendant in permitting two of its street cars to collide while he was a passenger on one of them. The trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $12,500, and, after taking the proper preliminary steps therefor, the defendant appealed the cause to this court.

The defendant concedes liability, and complains only as to the amount of the verdict, which it contends was excessive. The facts of the case are undisputed as shown by the statements of counsel for the respective parties, both of which are very full and fair, but we adopt that of the plaintiff, for the reason that it goes a little more into the detail of the evidence than does that of defendant. That statement is substantially as follows:

This is a suit by Samuel Parks against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. Prom a verdict and judgment for $12,500 in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, defendant has prosecuted this appeal. The injuries received by the respondent in this case grew out of a collision at Vandeventer and Olive streets, in the city of St. Louis, between two of defendant's cars. The fact that there was a collision is admitted, and the only question to be considered here has to do with paragraphs 2 and 3 of plaintiff's instruction on the measure of damages, and the contention made by appellant that the verdict is excessive.

The respondent in this case was a passenger on one of defendant's Vandeventer cars, and had just taken his seat when the collision occurred, and he says that the first thing he remembers was that he was in a drug store at Vandeventer and Olive, and they were endeavoring to stop the flow of blood from a wound on his forehead, about at the hair line. He was afterwards taken to the Oity Hospital, where his wound was dressed. His family physician, Dr. Parman, was called in, and went to the hospital, but, as respond ant was then up and dressed, and ready to be taken home, Dr. Parman did not give him any treatment there, but visited him at his house, and he saw that the wound had already been dressed, and he did not disturb it. A few days afterwards Dr. Parman was called in as the patient was running some temperature, and took the stitches out of the wound in the forehead, which he found to be about an and a half in length. Dr. Parman testified that as soon as the stitches were taken out and the wound again dressed the temperature went down several degrees. He was called in again within a very short time, and he found that the patient was running temperature, and complained of shooting pains in the head and arm, and he noticed that the wrist and hand were beginning to swell, and he ordered the patient taken to the Baptist Sanitarium, where the patient remained for some six weeks. The respondent was delirious for about two weeks, after being taken to the hospital, and when he came to, as he expressed it, he found that his hand and wrist had been operated upon. He remained there about a month longer when he was taken home. It develops from the testimony of the doctors in this case that some matter had gotten into the circulation from the wound in the forehead, and had lodged about in the wrist joint, where the pus began to form very rapidly, and it was necessary to operate upon the hand in order to drain the wrist joint. In this operation it was found necessary to cut on both sides of the hand, and establish a drainage, so that the wrist joint, which appeared to be the seat of the inflammation and pus formation, would properly drain. As a result of this inflammation in the wrist joint there was a complete ankylosis of the wrist joint, which means that there `was a bony formation formed between the bones of the forearm and the bones of the hand so as to make the joint perfectly rigid or stiff. The doctors speak of this as the bones being fused together. This bony formation, which is of the same character as the bones themselves, fills in where the joint had been, and fuses them together so as to make the place perfectly rigid and stiff where there formerly had been a wrist joint.

It developed from the testimony that, owing to the cutting into the hand, which was made necessary in the operation that was performed, they disturbed some of the tendons or ligaments which moved the fingers and thumb of the hand, so that, while the finger joints were not stiffened as the result of the operation, as a matter of fact the muscles or tendons which moved the fingers were rendered useless, and it was impossible for the plaintiff to close his hand or use his fingers in any practical manner.

The plaintiff testified that his wrist was absolutely stiff, and that it was impossible for him to use the fingers of the right hand for any practical purposes. There was some movement of the thumb. He could move it until it touched the fingers. He stated that he still had a very great deal of pain at any change of the weather all through his wrist and up in the arm, to the elbow joint. Plaintiff was an insurance adjuster and a clerk, and testified that he was right-handed, and he found it impossible to write with his injured right hand. He said the best he could do was to make an unintelligible scrawl when he attempted to write his name. He could not pick up a pen or a pencil unless he got it before him on the table in a certain position. Then he would pick it up from the under side. He said it was a very great effort for him to get in the writing position, but that it was impossible for him to write. He found very great difficulty in dressing, and in endeavoring to adjust his collar and ties, and part of that work had to be done by somebody else. He had a very hard time in eating, and he could not use his hand to cut any solid substances. He said he could not hold a fork in his right hand and cut with the left hand. He said that he could hold a fork in the left hand and cut soft substances with the right, but that he could not cut meat or anything of that kind. He said that id putting on his shoes he had to use his left hand entirely.

The fact that his right hand was useless for practical purposes was testified to by Dr. Charles G. Chaddock, one of the defendant's witnesses, who made an examination of respondent. Dr. Chaddock...