State v. Daues
Citation | 282 S.W. 389 |
Decision Date | 09 April 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 26183.,26183. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. DAUES et al., Judges. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Certiorari to St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Original proceeding in certiorari by the State of Missouri, at the relation of the American Car & Foundry Company, against Charles H. Danes and others, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, to quash their opinion in the case of Cobb v. American Car & Foundry Co., which can be found in 270 S. W. 398. Writ quashed.
Watts & Gentry and Arnot L. Sheppard, all of St. Louis (G. A. Orth, of New York City, of counsel), for relator.
N. Murray Edwards and Douglass, Inman & Horsefield, all of St. Louis, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari whereby the relator seeks to quash the opinion of respondents in the case of Cobb v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mo. App.) reported in 270 S. W. 398. Cobb recovered a judgment against relator in the sum of $3,000 on account of alleged injury to his eye through alleged negligence of relator. The trial court required Cobb to remit $1,000 of the damages awarded by the jury, on the ground that the verdict was excessive, or suffer a new trial. Cobb refused to make such remittitur. A new trial was thereupon granted to relator. Cobb appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. That court reversed the order granting such new trial and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to reinstate the verdict and enter judgment in accordance therewith.
It is the contention of relator that the opinion of respondents contravenes certain controlling decisions of this court and it asks that such opinion be quashed. Said opinion is quite brief and we quote it practically in full as follows:
Respondents made it very clear that they were distinguishing the case before them from cases where the evidence upon the extent of the injuries sustained is conflicting and a remittitur has been ordered by the trial court. Respondents held that there was no controversy that Cobb had sustained the loss of 75 per cent. of the sight of his left eye and that the sole controversy in the trial court was concerning the cause of such loss of sight. That is to say, that there was no issue in the trial court that the loss of sight was partly due to trachoma and partly the result of the injury there in question. Relator makes no contention that respondents' ruling that $3,000 is not an excessive award of damages for the loss of 75 per cent. of the sight of one eye conflicts with any controlling decision of this court. The cases cited in respondents' opinion well support the amount of the award made by the jury, if such loss of sight was due solely to the alleged injury.
Relator contends that respondents' opinion conflicts with State ex rel. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellison, 186 S. W. 1075, 268 Mo. 225, and McCloskey v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 63 S. W. 99, 163 Mo. 22. In State ex rel. v. Ellison, the plaintiff below had been put off a train for failure to pay fare at a rate of more than two cents per mile. He recovered $5 compensatory and $500 punitive damages. The trial court required a remittitur of $400 of such punitive damages on the ground that the amount awarded by the jury was excessive. Plaintiff refused to remit, and a new trial was granted. The Kansas City Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and directed that judgment be entered upon the verdict. Smith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 180 S. W. 1036, 192 Mo. App. 210. The Court of Appeals so ruled because, as it said:
This court en banc quashed the opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals. 186 S. W. 1075, 268 Mo. 225. It was first held, in harmony with all the cases, that the action of a trial court in setting aside a verdict as being against the weight of the evidence will not be reviewed except upon a showing that no verdict in favor of the party to whom the new trial was granted would be allowed to stand. This court then considered whether an award of punitive damages could be reduced when deemed excessive. Judge Faris said:
It thus appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial