Reiling v. Missouri Insurance Co., 19876.
| Citation | 153 S.W.2d 79 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 19876.,19876. |
| Parties | ROBERT REILING, APPELLANT, v. MISSOURI INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Paul A. Buzard, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
McCune, Caldwell, Downing & Noble, Stanley Garrity and Menefee D. Blackwell for appellant.
(1) The trial court erred in granting a new trial to defendant Missouri Insurance Company on the ground assigned (error in refusing to give on behalf of defendant Missouri Insurance Company instruction lettered "B", in the nature of a demurrer at the close of all the evidence), because: (a) As a new trial was granted on the ground that a demurrer should have been sustained to the evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to have the facts and all the reasonable inferences therefrom to be considered in the light most favorable to him. Mooney v. Monark Gasoline & Oil Co., 317 Mo. 1255, 298 S.W. 69; Huston v. Railway Co., 151 Mo. App. 335, 131 S.W. 714; Jiner v. Jiner, 182 Mo. App. 153, 168 S.W. 231; Schaffer Const. Co. v. Jones, 3 S.W. (2d) 286; Sing v. Railway Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 37; Pesot v. Yanda, 344 Mo. 338, 126 S.W. (2d) 240; Schneider v. Terminal Ry. Assn, 331 Mo. 430, 107 S.W. (2d) 787; Hoyland v. Mo. Pacific Ry. Co., 5 S.W. (2d) 125. (b) The plaintiff's evidence made out a submissible case against the defendant Missouri Insurance Company on all issues and clearly showed that defendant Krueger was in the performance of his authorized collection duties within his debit at the time and place of plaintiff's negligent injury, that regardless of the terms of the oral contract existing between them the defendant Missouri Insurance Company actually controlled the movements of defendant Krueger and the manner in which he performed his duties, and that defendant Missouri Insurance Company admittedly claimed the right to discharge him at will. Klaber v. Fidelity Building Co., 19 S.W. (2d) 758; 39 C.J. 1316, sec. 1518; Vert v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 342 Mo. 629, 117 S.W. (2d) 252; Hurla v. Capper Publications, 149 Kan. 369, 87 Pac. (2d) 557; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., v. Gosney, 101 Fed. (2d) 167, 114 Fed. (2d) 649; Riggs v. Higgins, 341 Mo. 1, 106 S.W. (2d) 1; Pesot v. Yanda, 334 Mo. 338, 126 S.W. (2d) 240; Snowwhite v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 344 Mo. 705, 127 S.W. (2d) 718; Chiles v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 230 Mo. App. 350, 91 S.W. (2d) 164; Dillon v. Prudential Ins. Co., 242 Pac. 736; Hall v. Sera, 152 Atl. 148; Burdo v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 4 N.Y.S. 819; Miller v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 16 N.E. (2d) 447; Amstutz v. Prudential Ins. Co., 26 N.E. (2d) 454; Chatelain v. Thackery, 100 Pac. (2d) 191; Stambaugh v. Hays, 103 Pac. (2d) 640; American National Ins. Co. v. Denke, 95 S.W. (2d) 370; Income Life Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 75 S.W. (2d) 572; Wesolowski v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 162 Atl. 166; Loper v. P.G. Publishing Co., 169 Atl. 374; Cusick v. Hutchinson, 177 Atl. 749; Gittelman v. Hoover Co., 10 Atl. (2d) 411; Dohner v. Winfield Gro. Co., 116 Kan. 237, 266 Pac. 767; Dobson v. Baxter Chat Co., 148 Kan. 750, 85 Pac. (2d) 1; Moseman v. Penwell Co., 151 Kan. 610, 100 Pac. (2d) 669. (c) If there is any fundamental difference between the rule in Missouri and Kansas on the question of liability of an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which plaintiff denies, the Missouri rule should be applied. Larsen v. Webb, 332 Mo. 370, 58 S.W. (2d) 967; Illinois Fuel Co. v. Mobile Ry. Co., 319 Mo. 899, 8 S.W. (2d) 834, Cert. Den., 278 U.S. 640; Yeats v. Dodson, 127 S.W. (2d) 652, 138 S.W. (2d) 1020; Still v. Union Circulation Co., 101 Fed. (2d) 11; Restatement of Conflicts, sec. 343, p. 419; Siegmann v. Meyer, 100 Fed. (2d) 367; Levy v. Daniels U-Drive Co., 143 Atl. 163; Enfield v. Butler, 264 N.W. 546; Farrell v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 168 Atl. 911; Cormier v. Hudson, 187 N.E. 625; Burkett v. Globe Ind. Co., 181 So. 316; McArthur v. Maryland Cas. Co., 186 So. 305; Myers v. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 99 Fed. (2d) 485. (2) The trial court erred in excluding from evidence Exhibit 18, a liability insurance policy, offered by the plaintiff, for the reason it was admissible to show defendant Missouri Insurance Company's knowledge that defendant Krueger used his family automobile in the performance of his duties, and further shows the intent of the Missouri Insurance Company to establish the relationship of master and servant. Whitman v. Carver, 337 Mo. 1247, 88 S.W. (2d) 885; Robinson v. McVey, 44 S.W. (2d) 238; Boten v. Ice Co., 180 Mo. App. 96, 166 S.W. 883; Paepke v. Stadelman, 300 S.W. 845.
Morrison, Nugent, Berger, Byers & Johns, E.R. Morrison, James E. Nugent, Randolph P. Rogers, Jr. and J.A. Morrison for Missouri Insurance Co., respondent.
(1) The evidence conclusively shows that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. (a) Under controlling court decisions failure to have his motorcycle under control as he approached the intersection was contributory negligence which bars recovery. Chance v. Murry, 143 Kan. 476, 54 Pac. (2d) 981; Giles v. Ternes, 93 Kan. 140, 143 Pac. 491; Agee v. Herring, 221 Mo. App. 1022, 298 S.W. 250. (b) The law is well settled that testimony which is contrary to physical facts and common knowledge has no probative force. Scroggins v. Met. Street Ry. Co., 138 Mo. App. 215, 220, 120 S.W. 731; Carner v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 338 Mo. 257, 89 S.W. (2d) 937; Hook v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 162 Mo. 569, 581, 63 S.W. 360; State ex rel. K.C. So. Ry. Co. v. Shain, et al., 340 Mo. 1195, 105 S.W. (2d) 915; Jamison v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 122 Kan. 305, 252 Pac. 472; Coleman v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 87 Kan. 190, 123 Pac. 756; Himmelwright v. Baker, 82 Kan. 569, 109 Pac. 178; Dyerson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 528, 87 Pac. 680; Crowder v. Williams, 116 Kan. 241, 226 Pac. 774; Martin v. Wiegand, 113 Kan. 611, 215 Pac. 1023. (c) Under the decisions of the State of Kansas the last clear chance doctrine does not apply because his negligence continued up to the time of the collision. Jamison v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 122 Kan. 305, 252 Pac. 472; Coleman v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 87 Kan. 190, 123 Pac. 756; Himmelwright v. Baker, 82 Kan. 569, 109 Pac. 178; Dyerson v. Union Pac. Railroad Co., 74 Kan. 528, 87 Pac. 680; Crowder v. Williams, 116 Kan. 241, 226 Pac. 774; Martin v. Wiegand, 113 Kan. 611, 215 Pac. 1023. (2) Krueger was not guilty of negligence. Egan v. Palmer, 221 Mo. App. 823, 293 S.W. 460; Stack v. General Baking Co., 283 Mo. 396, 223 S.W. 89; Plater v. W.C. Mullins Const. Co., 223 Mo. App. 650, 17 S.W. (2d) 658; Hegarty v. National Refining Co., 112 Kan. 151, 210 Pac. 348; Masterson v. McGoldrick Lumber Co., 128 Wash. 1, 221 Pac. 990; Buzick v. Todman, 179 Iowa, 1019, 162 N.W. 259; Robertson v. Spitler et al., 152 Minn. 395, 190 N.W. 992; Smith v. Taylor-Button Co., 179 Wis. 332, 190 N.W. 999. (3) There was no error in excluding the liability insurance contract, but in any event it would not be material on this appeal. Ross v. St. Louis Dairy Co., 339 Mo. 982, 98 S.W. (2d) 717. (4) Defendant Krueger was an independent contractor for whose acts in the operation of his automobile the Missouri Insurance Company was not liable. (a) Under the Kansas decisions Krueger was an independent contractor. Dohner v. Winfield Wholesale Grocery Co. et al., 116 Kan. 237, 226 Pac. 767; Hurla v. Capper Publications, Inc., et al., 149 Kan. 369, 87 Pac. (2d) 552; Dobson v. Baxter Chat Co., et al., 148 Kan. 750, 85 Pac. (2d) 1; Redfield v. Chelsea Coal Co., 136 Kan. 588, 16 Pac. (2d) 475; Brownrigg v. Allvine Dairy Co., 137 Kan. 209, 19 Pac. (2d) 474; McCraner v. Nunn, et al., 129 Kan. 708, 284 Pac. 605; Moseman v. Penwell Undertaking Co., 151 Kan. 610, 100 Pac. (2d) 669. (b) The law of Kansas governs as to whether negligence of Krueger, if any, can be imputed to this defendant. Restatement of Conflict of Laws, sec. 387, p. 472; 11 American Jurisprudence, sec. 182, p. 493; William Levy v. Daniel's U-Drive Auto Renting Co., Inc., 108 Conn. 333, 143 Atl. 163; Mitchell v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 202 Mo. App. 251, 215 S.W. 506; Yost v. Union Pacific R. Co., 245 Mo. 219, 149 S.W. 577; Johnson v. Nelson, 128 Minn. 158, 150 N.W. 620; Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803; Sharples v. Watson, 157 Miss. 236, 127 So. 779; Miranda v. LoCurto, 249 N.Y. 191, 163 N.E. 557; Cuba Railroad Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473, 56 L. Ed. 274; Masci v. Young, 109 N.J. Law 453, 162 A. 623; Liebing v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 276 Mo. 118, 207 S.W. 230; Ernest Hartmann v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 39 Mo. App. 88; Elk River Coal & Lbr. Co. v. A.B. Funk, 271 N.W. 204, 110 A.L.R. 1415; Boston & M.R. Co. v. McDuffey, 79 F. 934; Logan v. Mo. Valley B. & I. Co., 157 Ark. 528, 249 S.W. 21; Milton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 193 Mo. 46, 91 S.W. 949; Fedden v. Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Term., 199 N.Y.S. 9; Ledbetter v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co., 293 S.W. 791, 793; Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Gustafson, 41 Pac. 505, 21 Colo. 393. (c) Krueger was an independent contractor under the decisions of the Missouri courts. Vert v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 342 Mo. 629, 117 S.W. (2d) 252; Wesolowski et al. v. Hancock Ins. Co., 308 Pa. 117, 162 Atl. 166, 87 A.L.R. 783; American National Ins. Co. v. Denke, 128 Tex. 229, 95 S.W. (2d) 370, 107 A.L.R. 409; Kourik v. English et al., 340 Mo. 367, 100 S.W. (2d) 901; Skidmore v. Haggard, 341 Mo. 837, 110 S.W. 726; Barnes v. Real Silk Hosiery Mills, 341 Mo. 563, 108 S.W. (2d) 58; Manus v. K.C. Distributing Corp., 228 Mo. App. 905, 74 S.W. (2d) 506; State ex rel. Chapman v. Shain, et al., 147 S.W. (2d) 457; Perdue v. Chapman, 137 S.W. (2d) 483; Riggs v. Higgins, 341 Mo. 1, 106 S.W. (2d) 1; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Gosney, 101 F. (2d) 167; Dillon v. Prudential Ins. Co., 75 Cal. App. 266, 242 Pac. 736; Hall v. Sera, 152 Atl. 148; Gosney v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 114 F. (2d) 649; Chiles v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 230 Mo. App. 350, 91 S.W. (2d) 165; Klaber v....
To continue reading
Request your trial