St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 22 September 1914 |
| Docket Number | 5209. |
| Citation | 144 P. 1075,45 Okla. 143,1914 OK 451 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. BROWN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1914.
Syllabus by the Court.
The facts examined, and found not to bring the case within the definition of a quotient verdict or verdict by lot.
Upon grounds of public policy, the jurors will not be heard, by affidavit, deposition, or other sworn statement, to impeach or explain their verdict by showing on what ground it was rendered, or that they made a mistake, misunderstood the law or the result of their finding. The question as to whether or not evidence of jurors will be received to prove overt acts resulting in an irregular or an unauthorized verdict, is not involved, and the point is not decided.
Under all the facts and circumstances, the question of defendant's negligence was an issue for the jury. The jury having found in favor of plaintiff, and its finding has been approved by the trial court, the same will not be disturbed by this court.
There was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury; and the court did not err in overruling defendant's demurrer to the evidence, and in denying its motion for a directed verdict.
The seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States has no application to trials in state courts. The state has a right to regulate trials in its own courts in its own way.
Instructions of the court examined, and held to fairly cover the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence, and no error affecting a substantial right was committed in the court's instructions.
Defendant requested certain special instructions be given to the jury which were refused. Held the court had fairly submitted to the jury the law applicable to the issues, and no error was committed in the action of the court in this regard.
The facts show that both of plaintiff's feet were crushed that his right foot was crushed in the instep and his toes were broken so the bones protruded through the flesh, causing same to become permanently drawn out of shape; that the muscles and tendons of said foot are permanently injured, so plaintiff can never have full and free use of same; that his left foot was bruised and maimed so that a large portion of the bones of his ankle and foot were splintered and mashed, and it was necessary to remove same; that his injuries are permanent, which require him to use crutches, in order to walk; that he suffered a great deal of pain, and was under care of physicians for several months. Held that a verdict for $16,900 is not excessive.
Error from District Court, Carter County; S. H. Russell, Judge.
Action by Harry A. Brown against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., and R. A. Kleinschmidt and J. H. Grant, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Stuart, Cruce & Cruce, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This proceeding is prosecuted from a judgment of the district court of Carter county. The parties will be referred to as they were in the trial court.
The plaintiff in his petition avers in substance that he is a resident of the state of Oklahoma, and that the defendant is a common carrier, engaged in the operation of a line of railway, and in interstate commerce between the town of Hugo, in the state of Oklahoma, and through the town of Ashdown to the town of Hope, in the state of Arkansas; that on the 20th day of February, 1911, while engaged in cutting out and taking on cars in the town of Ashdown, Ark., in making up a regular train destined for Hugo, Okl., plaintiff was permanently injured through the carelessness and negligence of one Tom Chamberlain, engineer, engaged in making up said train; that while assisting in switching and cutting out said cars in making up said train, as his duty and as he was ordered, he signaled said engineer to stop, and wait until he could throw the switch and arrange the knuckle on the end car, so that it would couple onto the main train standing on the passing track; that said engineer had stopped the train and plaintiff had thrown the switch and stepped in between the rails and between the ties to fix the knuckle on the coupler, as was his duty to do; said engineer, disobeying plaintiff's signal to wait, and without warning or notice to plaintiff, with great force, carelessly and negligently put said engine in motion and backed said cars upon plaintiff so suddenly and unexpectedly as to make it impossible for plaintiff to escape, and plaintiff was thrown violently across said rail, and both of his feet were crushed and maimed so that he sustained permanent injuries; that said plaintiff's right foot was crushed in the instep and toes and the bones broken therein so that same protruded through the flesh, causing said foot to become permanently drawn out of shape; that said muscles and tendons of said foot were permanently injured, bruised, and strained so that plaintiff could never have full and free use of same; that plaintiff's left foot was bruised and maimed so that a large portion of the bones of the ankle and foot were splintered and smashed so that it became necessary to remove the same, thereby crippling the plaintiff and causing him to use crutches in order to walk; and that by reason of said injuries, plaintiff suffered great mental pain and anguish, and has been ever since said injury under constant care of physicians and surgeons. Plaintiff further alleges that it became and was his duty to so arrange the knuckle at the ends of the cars that the same would couple by impact, and while the cars on the mill track were being pulled out upon the passing track, he crossed over to the end car of the train, left standing on the passing track, to open the knuckle thereon, but that the same was so defective that plaintiff was unable to open the same. The plaintiff then signaled the engineer, as aforesaid, to stop and wait while he opened the knuckle upon the rear car attached to said engine. That said knuckle was so defective that it stuck and refused to open, and that it was while so engaged that plaintiff was injured, as herein alleged, while he was in the exercise of due care and without fault or negligence on his part. That both of said cars were used by said defendant in interstate commerce and had couplers so defective that they would not couple by impact, as required by Act of Congress of March 2, 1893 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913, §§ 8605-8612), and as amended by the Act of April 22, 1908 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913, §§ 8657-8665). That by reason of such injuries, he sustained damages in the sum of $35,000, and prays judgment.
The defendant denied generally and specially all and singular every allegation in said petition, except such as were specifically admitted. It alleged that said train was a local, operating wholly within the state of Arkansas between Hope and Ashdown, and denies that either of said cars were so defective or that they were equipped with defective couplers, as alleged. It averred that said cars and each of them were properly equipped with operating levers by which the knuckles and couplers on said cars could be prepared for coupling by impact while standing outside of the track and without going between the said cars, and denies that the injuries, if any, received by plaintiff, were caused in any manner by the negligence of the defendant, and alleges that if said injuries were contributed to by any act of negligence, save his own, that it was the negligence of a fellow servant or fellow servants of the plaintiff, for which the defendant would not be liable. Defendant specifically alleges that the injuries received were due to and directly contributed to by the negligence of plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a reply, denying all and singular the allegations of new matter in the answer, and making certain affirmative allegations, not necessary to be set out at length.
Defendant, in its petition in error, assigns 22 errors, but only discusses the following: (2) Misconduct of the jury, whereby defendant was prevented from having a fair trial. (3) The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence. (4) Errors of law occurring at the trial and duly excepted to by defendant. (11) The court erred in overruling the demurrer of defendant to the evidence of plaintiff. (13) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. (15) The court erred in his instructions to the jury, and specifically in giving to the jury instructions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, inclusive, and in giving each of said instructions. (16) the court erred in refusing to give to the jury the several instructions requested by defendant and in refusing to give each of said instructions, as requested. (17) Said court erred in receiving a verdict signed or agreed to by less than 12 jurors. (18) The verdict of the jury is excessive, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. (22) The court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.
We will consider the various assignments relied upon in the order in which they are presented in counsels' brief, except we will group and dispose of the third, fourth, eleventh, and thirteenth together, as they involve principally one proposition of law, and are controlled practically by the same state of facts. It is sufficient to say that the plaintiff's testimony substantially sustains the allegations in his petition, as set out.
Under the first assignment presented by counsel, "misconduct of the jury," it is contended that it is shown from the testimony of two of the jurors that the amount of the verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial