Smite v. Scudiero

• Decision Date: 20 May 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12903.,12903.
• Citation: 204 S.W. 565
• Parties: SMITH v. SCUDIERO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

204 S.W. 565

SMITH v. SCUDIERO.

No. 12903.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 20, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Lela Smith against Vincent Scudiero. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded unless remittitur is made; otherwise affirmed.

Ball & Ryland, of Kansas City, for appellant. Brewster, Kelly, Brewster & Buchholz, of Kansas City, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is for damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been received in a rear-end collision between two automobiles on the streets of Kansas City. She had judgment in the trial court.

Plaintiff, with a friend and a small brother, was sitting in the rear seat of her father's automobile, and her father and mother were in the front seat. The evidence tended to show that defendant came up behind with great speed and ran into the, rear of their car, whereby plaintiff was knocked or thrown forward and hurt.

Though other objections to the trial of the case are presented, there are two chief grounds upon which a reversal is asked. The first of these relates to a question propounded to the jury on their voir dire, whether there is any member of the panel connected, in any way, or financially interested in any insurance company, or whether any member of the jury has a relative who is in the employ of such company or financially interested in it. Preceding these questions, oil of defendant's counsel had been asked whether he represented an insurance company which was interested in the defense of the case; and he had refused to answer the question on the ground that it did not concern the plaintiff. In these circumstances the questions have been ruled to be permissible. Kinney v. Street Railway Co., 261 Mo. 97, 114, 169 S. W. 23; Meyer v. Mfg. Co., 67 Mo. App. 389; Boten v. Ice Co., 180 Mo. App. 106, 166 S. W. 883; Yates v. House Wrecking Co., 195 S. W. 549, 551.

The second ground is that the verdict for $1,100 should have been set aside as being excessive. Plaintiff was fifteen years old. She suffered some pain and was bruised about the body to some extent. There has been some pain during menstrual period, though that was shown not to be uncommon. There was some tenderness "in the intestinal and ovarian region"; and there was a slight fracture of the fifth and sixth ribs.

We do not see that plaintiff has been seriously or permanently...