Sullivan v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 01 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 15577.,15577.
• Citation: 283 S.W. 743
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

283 S.W. 743

SULLIVAN v. WILSON et al.

No. 15577.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 1, 1926.

Certiorari Denied May 21, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Allen C. Southern, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Monica Sullivan against Francis M. Wilson and another, receivers of the Kansas City Railways Company. Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1, and she appeals. Affirmed.

John D. Wendorff, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Charles N. Sadler and Ben L: White, both of Kansas City, for respondents.

BLAND, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1, and she has appealed. The verdict was as follows:

"We, the jury, find the issues for the plaintiff, and do assess her damages at one dollar and court costs." (Italics ours.)

The facts show that plaintiff was a passenger on a street car being operated by the defendant south on Summit street near Southwest boulevard in Kansas City, Mo. The car was going down a grade, and it appeared to plaintiff "like it ran off the track, there was a noise and there were sparks that came in the' windows, and it was just like little sparks, and I thought the car was going to burn up." "I stood up, and everybody was rushing towards the front and towards the back," and "everybody got panicky in the car and commenced hollering, and a man said, `Jump,' and some of them jumped, and I thought by the time I would get out that the car would be burned up, so I jumped out the window." The car was well filled, and at least two other passengers jumped out of the window. The doors of the car appeared closed, and the motorman jumped out of the front window. Finally all of the passengers got out of the car, and one, a man, said his hand was burned.

When plaintiff jumped out of the car, she "lit on her feet" and broke some of the bones of her feet. She sustained a sprain to her right ankle and a fracture of the external malleolus, the tip end being broken off; she suffered a fracture of the metatarsal connecting with the little toe of the left foot as well as a depressed fracture of one of the large bones of that foot. The left foot was put in a plaster cast and the right in a steel cast extending to her knee: She suffered a great deal of pain and mental anguish, and as the result of her injuries her earning capacity has been greatly reduced. Her left foot is more or less sore and stiff. The fracture of the right ankle did not unite and had not united at the time of the trial. She has suffered a marked limitation of the movement of the right ankle and cannot move it more than one-fourth as much as she could before the injury. Defendant introduced no evidence tending to dispute the testimony of plaintiff and her witnesses as to her injuries.

Defendant's evidence tended to show that the appearance of sparks in and about the car was caused by the breaking of a trolley wire; that the motorman immediately stopped the car and opened the front door and went out the front exit; that the conductor opened the rear door and went out the rear exit; that the trolley wire that had been broken was the best that could be procured on the market and One in general use by street car companies; that it was the best trolley wire offered by standard manufacturers of such wires; that the wire in question was put up and installed in the usual and customary manner; that the structure supporting it was strong and substantial; that all of defendant's wires, including this particular wire, had been regularly inspected and taken care of by skilled, experienced, and competent men, inspection being made as often as every 60 or 90 days; that the particular wire in question had been so inspected between the 21st and 25th of July before the accident in August thereafter, and that on such inspections there was no patent or discoverable defects therein; that a trolley wire often broke because there is no way of finding out if one has a latent defect; and that it is impossible to guard against their breaking. Defendant's evidence concerning the wire in question and the inspection thereof, and concerning trolley wires in general, was not disputed.

Plaintiff insists that the verdict was grossly inadequate and that the court erred in refusing to sustain plaintiff's motion for a new trial on this ground.

"Well-considered cases establish the right of an appellant to have a verdict set aside either excessively large or ridiculously small in actions for personal torts, where the result indicates passion, prejudice or misconduct on the part of the jury. The rulings of this court upon this question have been carefully collated by Lamm, J., in Fischer v. St. Louis, 189 Mo. loc. cit. 577 [88 S. W. 82, 107 Am. St. Rep. 380], and their repetition here would serve no useful purpose. They abound in subtle distinctions or nice refinements and are so dependent upon their particular facts as not to be subject to any general rule governing the conclusions reached. In regard to them this much may be stated generally: That in arriving at a conclusion the presumption is in favor of the good conduct of the jury, and...