Sharon v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 20914 |
| Citation | 208 S.W.2d 471 |
| Parties | SHARON v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE CO |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
'Not to be published in State Reports.'
Charles L. Carr, Frank J. Rogers, and Cooper, Neel, Sutherland & Rogers, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
Louis N. Goessy and J. W. Kachelhofer, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action for damages sustained by plaintiff while a passenger in a bus owned and operated by the defendant. The verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the sum of $ 2000. Defendant has appealed.
The substance of the petition is that plaintiff, a mail carrier boarded a gasoline propelled bus owned and operated by defendant over its 27th Street bus line in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 4, 1946, and while he was such passenger, the said bus approached Benton Boulevard on 27th Street, and while plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, defendant, through its agents and servants, so negligently and carelessly operated said bus as to cause said bus 'to unusually, suddenly and violently stop, throwing plaintiff against hard surfaces, and causing him to suffer' the permanent and progressive injuries described, and to suffer continual and constant pain and anguish. It was alleged that plaintiff, because of such injuries, had also incurred medical expenses in the sum of $ 300, and that he would be required to expend further sums therefor. The prayer was for recovery of all damages in the sum of $ 7500.
The answer, admitting defendant's incorporation, denied all the other allegations of the petition, and alleged that it could not affirm or deny the nature and extent of the plaintiff's damages, and therefore generally denied the same.
According to the evidence adduced to sustain the petition, the following are the facts:
Plaintiff except for his recent three years' service in the navy had been a mail carrier in Kansas City for the past 18 years, during which he had enjoyed excellent health and strength; on June 4, 1946, at about 8 o'clock in the morning he, with two other mail carriers, boarded one of defendant's 27th Street gasoline propelled buses at 15th and Prospect on his way to his assigned route; the bus was a newer type bus than had been operated on the line, and a type which was used there only a short time; plaintiff and one of his co-employees took a seat in the first seat behind the exit door on the right hand side of the bus, plaintiff sitting in the aisle side of the seat, and one of his coemployees sitting next to the window therein, the third coemployee sitting in the seat running across the rear of the bus; over the left shoulder of the plaintiff was strapped his bag of mail. On the trip the operator, a man of about 60 years of age, travelled about 30 miles an hour, and did not operate the bus as a skilled operator, appearing not to be used to that type of bus; as the operator approached the intersection of Benton Boulevard and 27th Street he increased the speed five or ten miles an hour; the traffic light was green and the operator proceeded fast as if to 'make the light.' Several people were waiting at the corner to get on the bus but the operator did not stop there for them; that when the front of the bus reached about the center of the intersection, the brakes were thrown on and the bus came to a sudden and abrupt stop, throwing the plaintiff from his seat forward in the aisle to the second seat from the front of the bus on the right hand side, a distance of about 12 feet, plaintiff being on his feet all of the time and still holding his mail bag and without dropping any of its contents; that as he was forced down the aisle he endeavored to grab 'everything possible,' but was unable to stop until he hit the handle of the second seat mentioned, where he struck his right side, and violently struck his toe on some hard object. Plaintiff walked back and took his seat and appeared very pale. During the stop the persons waiting on the corner ran out into the intersection and boarded the bus. The traffic light had turned red at the time the bus stopped.
At the same time that plaintiff was thrown from his seat, a man and a woman where also thrown from their seats, but no one was seen to go forward and complain to the operator. When the accident occurred the plaintiff was looking out of the window to the right, and was told later by his coemployees present that they had seen an automobile in front of the bus in the intersection.
Plaintiff's evidence further tended to show that after the accident the bus proceeded on eastward and plaintiff alighted at 27th and Elmwood, and delivered his mail over his regular route. He then returned by bus to the post office. He did not work that afternoon because he began to suffer pain in his side, which had bothered him somewhat on his morning delivery, and he went home and went to bed.
Witness Strain, one of the plaintiff's mail carrier friends on the bus, testified:
'
And on cross-examination, regarding his former deposition, he said:
He testified that the automobile was traveling west and the bus east, and on the same light at the same intersection, and that the automobile was standing still before it made the turn, probably waiting for a green light to turn south.
Plaintiff's witness Whitfield, the other mail carrier present, testified that:
* * *
On cross-examination this witness stated that he saw an automobile headed west, and then turn south in front of the bus after the bus had entered the intersection; that the car was nearly on the bus and, in his opinion, if the brakes had not been put on, the bus would have hit the automobile.
The next morning the plaintiff, with the help of his wife and two men, was carried of assisted to the doctor's office in the neighborhood, where his side and foot were x-rayed. His side was taped and his foot put in a cast. This cast was worn about six weeks. By the help of crutches and assisted by his wife he made almost daily trips to the doctor's office until August 6. Between times he was confined to his bed for a period of approximately six weeks. He suffered a great deal from his side and toe and from the cast which he was compelled to wear. During that period he contracted a cold, which settled in his injured side. Since his return to his employment August 5, his foot bothers him quite often, but not continuously, and that every cold which he contracts, settles in his injured right side. He has lost only a few days since his return to work. His pay was continued during his time out.
Plaintiff's wife testified that she discontinued her own employment to take care of plaintiff after the injury; that at first plaintiff's large toe was entirely black and plaintiff could not move it; that he was confined to bed from June 5 to August 6, and wore the cast all but four days of that period that he had to be half carried and half dragged to and from the doctor's office, and on one occasion carried by two men; that now, when he returns from work, he is exhausted whereas, before the accident, this fatigue was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial