State ex rel. Gilday v. Trimble

• Decision Date: 01 December 1931
• Docket Number: 30637
• Citation: 44 S.W.2d 57,329 Mo. 198
• Parties: The State ex rel. E. J. Gilday v. Francis H. Trimble et al., Judges of Kansas City Court of Appeals
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 S.W.2d 57

329 Mo. 198

The State ex rel. E. J. Gilday v. Francis H. Trimble et al., Judges of Kansas City Court of Appeals

No. 30637

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 1, 1931

Certiorari to Kansas City Court of Appeals.

Record quashed.

Mosman Rogers & Buzard for relators.

(1) The opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with and contrary to the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court in holding that the remarks in argument constituted misconduct and reversible error. State ex rel. Meyer v Daues, 285 S.W. 986; Straus v. Railroad Co., 86 Mo. 421; Ranier v. Railroad Co., 271 S.W. 500; Irons v. Am. Express Co., 300 S.W. 293; Moll v. Pollack, 8 S.W.2d 48; Winkler v. Railroad Co., 10 S.W.2d 650; Scullin v. Wabash, 184 Mo. 695; State v. Bland, 30 S.W.2d 445. (2) The opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with and contrary to the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court, which hold that before a case may be reversed for misconduct in the argument, it must appear that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling upon the matter at the time, and that the remarks were such as to and did prejudice the jury against the complaining party. Irons v. Am. Express Co., 300 S.W. 293; Moll v. Pollack, 8 S.W.2d 48; Winkler v. Railway, 10 S.W.2d 649; State ex rel. Meyer v. Daues, 285 S.W. 986; Bobos v. Packing Co., 19 S.W.2d 633; Yost v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 245 Mo. 219.

Henry S. Conrad, L. S. Durham, Hale Houts and Spurgeon L. Smithson for respondents.

(1) The Court of Appeals in holding that the remarks of plaintiff's counsel in his argument to the jury constituted improper comment and reversible error has not contravened the decisions of this court. (a) The Court of Appeals in holding that Doctor Newman was more accessible to the plaintiff than the defendant and, indeed, that he was under the control of the plaintiff rather than the defendant, and in holding that his non-production by the plaintiff was a proper subject of comment by the defendant, but that his non-production by the defendant was not a proper subject of comment by plaintiff's counsel, has not contravened any decisions of this court, but on the contrary, has followed the controlling decisions of this court. Atkinson v. United Rys., 286 Mo. 640; Porter v. Railroad, 28 S.W.2d 1039; Evans v. Trenton, 112 Mo. 403; Willits v. Railroad, 221 S.W. 65; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 278 Mo. 695; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 38 S.W.2d 1017; State ex rel. v. Haid, 41 S.W.2d 809; Winkler v. Railroad, 10 S.W.2d 650; State v. Bland, 30 S.W.2d 445; Grubbs v. Public Service Co., 30 S.W.2d 441; State ex rel. Meyer v. Daues, 285 S.W. 986. (b) The Court of Appeals has not contravened any decision of this court in holding that the comment made by plaintiff's counsel was not a proper retort to argument made by defendant's counsel. Rainier v. Railroad, 271 S.W. 506; Yost v. Railroad, 245 Mo. 219; Bobos v. Krey Packing Co., 19 S.W.2d 630; State v. Bland, 30 S.W.2d 446. (c) Defendant's counsel made no comment upon the plaintiff's non-production of Doctor Newman. Regardless, therefore, of what the effect of such comment would have been, there can be no claim of justification of the argument of plaintiff's counsel as a retort. State ex rel. Myer v. Daues, 315 Mo. 186. (2) The Court of Appeals did not contravene any decision of this court on the question of discretion of the trial court or in respect to the matter of the prejudice of the error committed. Moll v. Pollock, 8 S.W.2d 48; Irons v. Ry. Exp., 300 S.W. 239; Nelson v. Boiler Co., 20 S.W.2d 911; Atkinson v. United Rys., 286 Mo. 642.

OPINION

White, P. J.

The relator, employed by Smith Brothers, Inc., while working in a tunnel was injured by an electric wire, and recovered judgment for $ 3,000 for the alleged negligence of the defendant in failure to have said wire sufficiently insulated. On appeal to the Kansas City Court of Appeals the judgment of the circuit court was reversed on the sole ground that the counsel for plaintiff in his closing argument made improper remarks to the jury. The matter is set out by the Court of Appeals in its opinion, as follows:

"The evidence shows that three doctors examined plaintiff, one of whom was Dr. Newman, who first examined plaintiff at the instance of his attorney, and afterwards examined him when he applied, in September, 1926, for a position with the Skelly Oil Company. Dr. Newman was employed by this company to examine applicants for positions with it. Two other doctors who examined plaintiff, one of whom was his regular physician, were produced as witnesses for him at the trial. Plaintiff failed to produce the testimony of Dr. Newman. This was a circumstance properly drawn to the attention of the jury by counsel for defendant. However, in his closing argument counsel for plaintiff stated as follows:

"'Why, gentlemen, he says Dr. Newman knew about it. In all fairness, if he wants to be fair about it, I want to ask you who was better able to produce the evidence of Dr. Newman than the defendant.

"'Mr. Smithson: Just a moment. This is objected to for the reason it is improper.

"'Mr. Rogers: Well he spoke of it.

"'Mr. Smithson: He was at least equally available to the plaintiff.

"'The Court: Objection overruled.'

"An exception was saved to this ruling of the court. It is urged by the defendant that the court erred in permitting this line of argument. We think there is no question but that this point is well taken. Defendant was justified in bringing to the attention of the jury the failure of plaintiff to call one of his physicians, and no unfavorable inference could be drawn by plaintiff's counsel for the failure of defendant to call him. [Atkinson v. United Rys. Co., 286 Mo. 634; Murphy v. Tumbrink, 25 S.W.2d 133; Duncan v. City Ice Co., 25 S.W.2d 536.]

"After examining plaintiff Dr. Newman made a written report to his company as to the result of his examination, which was in accordance with the practice of the company. Upon objection of the plaintiff the court ruled out the report. In arguing the case counsel for defendant called the attention of the jury to the fact that Dr. Newman had examined plaintiff at the instance of his attorney. Counsel did not stop there, but argued that Dr. Newman had made another examination in September, at the time plaintiff applied for a position with the Skelly Oil Company, and stated that the evidence showed that plaintiff passed a satisfactory examination. As a matter of fact the evidence did show these things. Counsel for defendant argued that whatever the doctor might have found in September, if there was anything alarming about plaintiff's condition when the doctor examined him at the instance of his attorney, the doctor then would have discovered it; that Dr. Newman would not have been a partisan witness regardless as to the partisanship of the other doctors because he had no motive in falsifying in regard to his (plaintiff's) condition. Counsel argued that in examining plaintiff for the Skelly Oil Company Dr. Newman had no interest in the matter."

The Court of Appeals held that it was entirely proper for defendant's counsel to call attention to the failure of plaintiff to call Dr. Newman, but reversible error for the court to permit the plaintiff to reply to it in the way he did.

It will be noted from the excerpt that Dr. Newman made two examinations of the plaintiff: one when he was first injured in May, another one in September when he applied for a position with the Skelly Oil Company. Two doctors besides Dr. Newman who examined the plaintiff were produced by him at the trial, but he did not call Dr. Newman.

In the second examination Dr. Newman did not represent the plaintiff. So far as his discoveries at that time were concerned he was as available to the defendant as to the plaintiff. Defendant's counsel stated that Newman would not have been a partisan witness, and he had no motive to testify falsely in regard to the plaintiff's condition. It was entirely proper to...