Rogers v. St. Avit
| Citation | 60 S.W.2d 698 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 22442.,22442. |
| Parties | ROGERS v. ST. AVIT. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cape Girardeau County; Frank Kelly, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Winifred Rogers against John St. Avit. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
J. Grant Frye and B. Hugh Smith, both of Cape Girardeau, for appellant.
B. C. Hardesty and Rush H. Limbaugh, both of Cape Girardeau, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action for malpractice. Plaintiff alleges in her petition that she suffered an accident whereby the bones in her right leg between the ankle and knee were fractured, and the bones in and about her right ankle joint were dislocated and displaced; that she employed the defendant as a physician and surgeon to treat her said injuries, and that pursuant to such employment defendant undertook the treatment of said injuries; that due to his negligence and lack of skill defendant failed to discover that plaintiff's said bones were broken and her joints and bones dislocated and displaced; that due to his negligence and lack of skill he treated plaintiff only for an ankle sprain for a period of seven days, and failed to treat her for her broken and dislocated bones; that after a period of seven days defendant, with the aid of another physician and surgeon called in by him, discovered that her lower tibia, fibula, and joints and bones of her foot were broken, dislocated, and displaced; that thereupon defendant, with the aid of such other physician and surgeon, undertook to relocate and replace the said bones and joints in their proper position and to reduce said fractures of her said bones, but that due to his negligence and lack of skill defendant did not properly replace and relocate said joints and bones and did not properly reduce said fractured bones; that after said attempted relocation of her joints and reduction of her said fractures, plaintiff remained in bed continuously thereafter for a period of six weeks; that at the end of said period of six weeks, it was discovered that plaintiff's foot was turned out crooked, the bones of her leg not being in apposition, and the ankle bone and other bones of her foot being dislocated and displaced; that thereupon it became necessary for her to employ a competent physician and surgeon to correct the deformities resulting from defendant's negligent and unskillful treatment; that it became necessary for said physician and surgeon to put her under the influence of an anæsthetic and cut the flesh of her leg and ankle from the fractured and dislocated bones and to rebreak and place the same in proper position; that on account of such operation plaintiff was again obliged to remain in bed for many weeks, and since said operation has been unable to walk except with the aid of crutches; that on account of the defendant's said negligence and lack of skill in his treatment of plaintiff, she has been compelled to expend, and will in the future be compelled to expend, large sums for medical, surgical, hospital, and nurses' expenses, has lost, and will in the future lose, much time from her business, domestic enterprises, and ordinary gainful pursuits, has become greatly nervous, and has suffered general impairment of her health, has suffered, and will in the future suffer, anxiety, mental anguish, and physical pain; that by reason of defendant's said negligence and lack of skill plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $5,000, for which sum she prays judgment.
The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff and a number of other witnesses, one of whom was an X-ray technician at a local hospital, testified, on behalf of plaintiff, to facts which tended to prove all the allegations of plaintiff's petition.
Defendant and a number of physicians testified on behalf of defendant. The testimony of these physicians was chiefly opinion and expert testimony, given in response to hypothetical questions, and upon their examination of X-ray pictures. They testified that the treatment and method of defendant in caring for plaintiff's injuries was the usual and customary mode of treatment and care, and testified that in the community where the defendant practiced his profession he had a good reputation as being a person possessed of the degree of professional skill and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by persons of his profession.
Upon the voir dire examination of the jury, Mr. Limbaugh, of counsel for the defendant, stated to the court, out of the hearing of the jury, that he was employed to defend the case, on behalf of defendant, by the Medical Protective Association of Fort Wayne, Ind.
On cross-examination of defendant's medical witnesses, they were asked if they were not members of the Medical Protective Association of Fort Wayne, Ind., and if in the event of a verdict and judgment against defendant they would not be assessed as members of said association, along with other members, to pay the verdict and judgment. On objection of the defendant, the witnesses were not permitted to answer.
On further cross-examination of defendant's medical witnesses, they were asked if they had not heard rumors of lack of skill on the part of the defendant in the treatment of a number of persons named for injuries suffered by such persons. On objection of defendant, the witnesses were not permitted to answer.
These rulings are complained of by plaintiff here as reversibly erroneous.
It is a well-established rule that upon the trial of the issues in a cause the jurymen are entitled to know everything that affects the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, including not only their own interests in the result of the suit, but also their interests in the parties who are to profit or lose by the verdict. This goes not only to their contractual relations, but also to their friendships and enmities. In other words, the jurymen are entitled to know the interests and prejudices of the witnesses with respect to the issues on trial, their relations to the parties, and the state of their feelings towards the parties. Snyder v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 284 Mo. 285, 223 S. W. 911; Jablonowski v. Modern Cap Mfg. Co., 312 Mo. 173, 279 S. W. 89; Warner v. Oriel Glass Co., 319 Mo. 1196, 8 S.W.(2d) 84...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jants v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
... ... State v. Rose, 339 ... Mo. 317, 96 S.W.2d 498; Kingston v. Roberts, 175 ... Mo.App. 69, 157 S.W. 1042; Rogers v. St. Avit, 60 ... S.W.2d 698. (15) Nor is the cross-examiner bound by the ... answer. He may lay a foundation for impeachment by other ... ...
-
Denny v. Robertson
... ... record in such case. Denial of the right to show bad ... reputation of expert witness is prejudicial error. Rogers ... v. St. Avit, 60 S.W.2d 698; Huhn v. Ruprecht, 2 ... S.W.2d 760; Ross v. Grand Pants Co., 170 Mo.App ... 291, 156 S.W. 92; Bush v. Kansas City ... ...
-
Bush v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
...Co. v. Hall, 55 F.2d 139; Booker v. Kansas City Gas Co., 231 Mo.App. 214; State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74; State v. Crow, 337 Mo. 397; Rogers v. St. Avit, 60 S.W.2d 698; Riner Riek, 57 S.W.2d 724; Wilson v. Marland Refining Co., 7 S.W.2d 442; State v. Hersh, 296 S.W. 433; Taylor v. Connecticut Fir......
-
Arnold v. Alton R. Co.
...States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218; Pullman Co. v. Hall, 55 F.2d 139; Muller v. Hospital Assn., 73 Mo. 242, 5 Mo.App. 401; Rogers v. St. Avit, 60 S.W.2d 698; State ex Horton v. Clark, 320 Mo. 1190, 9 S.W.2d 635; State v. Davis, 284 Mo. 695, 225 S.W. 707; Kirkpatrick v. Am. Ry. Express, 6 S.......