Rush v. Hollingsworth
| Decision Date | 02 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 18461.,18461. |
| Citation | 89 S.W.2d 535 |
| Parties | RUSH v. HOLLINGSWORTH. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Mrs. Lona Rush against Hazel Hollingsworth. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Fred F. Wesner and E. W. Jones, both of Sedalia, for appellant.
Trusty & Pugh and Guy Green, Jr., all of Kansas City, and Frank T. Armstrong, of Sedalia, for respondent.
An action for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, now respondent, in a collision between a taxicab driven by a servant of defendant, and plaintiff's truck in which she was riding as a passenger.
The collision took place on Saline street in the city of Sedalia, as plaintiff's truck emerged from an alley into said street. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,750. Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, whereupon she appealed to this court.
Point is made by respondent that appellant's statement of the case is insufficient, and for that reason the appeal should be dismissed. We do not think so. The statement is well enough. It certainly gives a clear idea of what the case is about, the facts involved, and the one point alleged as error, complained of. It is in no sense lacking in necessary requirements as were the statements in the cases cited, which statements were held to be so insufficient as to require the appeals to be dismissed and where that penalty was applied, to wit: McDonnell v. Hawkeye Life Insurance Company (Mo.App.) 84 S.W. (2d) 387, and Euler v. State Highway Commission, 227 Mo.App. 755, 55 S.W.(2d) 719.
As heretofore stated, only one point is made by appellant, and claimed as error on the part of the trial court, namely, in giving plaintiff's instruction F which relates to the measure of damages.
The petition charged negligence on the part of defendant's servant, at the time of the collision, in several particulars, and the case was submitted on some of them, namely, the failure to exercise the highest degree of care, to keep the car or taxicab under reasonable control, and to operate it at a speed that would not endanger the life of others using the highway, and to maintain a lookout to discover and avoid collision with other vehicles.
Plaintiff's truck, traveling north, was emerging from an alley and going into Saline street, and defendant's taxicab was going east thereon. Plaintiff's truck was going very slowly, but defendant's taxicab was going from thirty-five to forty miles per hour, and, colliding with plaintiff's vehicle, threw plaintiff out on the pavement, causing her to fall thereon in a sitting posture. The evidence in her behalf is that she sustained a serious injury to the lower end of her backbone, the coccyx, and that she was in other respects cut, bruised, and injured and that her injuries are permanent.
As stated, the only complaint of error charged is in regard to plaintiff's given instruction F, concerning the measure of damages. Said instruction is as follows:
"If you find for the plaintiff then it is your duty to award her such damages as you find from the evidence will reasonably and fairly compensate her for such injuries and physical disability, if any, as you find from the evidence, has directly resulted to her as a direct result of any injuries you find from the evidence resulted to her by reason of said collision."
The first charge made against this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coats v. Old
... ... speed) relied upon by plaintiff and sworn by the evidence ... There is no merit in this contention. [Rush v ... Hollingsworth, 89 S.W.2d 535; Laycock v. United Rys ... Co., 235 S.W. 91.] ... [237 ... Mo.App. 357] It is insisted ... ...
-
Jackson v. Security Ben. Ass'n
... ... 448, 450; Jacobson v. Graham Ship By Truck Co., 61 ... S.W.2d 401; Nowlin v. K. C. Public Service Co., 58 ... S.W.2d 324, 326; Rush v. Hollingsworth, 89 S.W.2d ... 535. The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled ... ON THE ... MERITS OF THE APPEAL ... ...
-
Norman v. McLelland
...Land & Lumber Co., 105 Mo.App. 279, 79 S.W. 1145, 1155.4 Martin v. Kansas City, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 645, 650; Rush v. Hollingsworth, Mo.App., 89 S.W.2d 535, 536; Clark v. Atchison & Eastern Bridge Co., 333 Mo. 721, 62 S.W.2d 1079, 1082, cert. den. Atchison & Eastern Bridge Co. v. Clark, 290 U.S......
-
Jackson v. Security Ben. Ass'n, 18954.
...Graham Ship-by-Truck Co., Mo.App., 61 S.W.2d 401; Nowlin v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 58 S.W.2d 324, 326; Rush v. Hollingsworth, Mo.App., 89 S.W.2d 535. The motion to dismiss the appeal is On the Merits of the Appeal. Count I. The disability benefits to which plaintiff claims......