Tulsa City Lines v. Geiger, 36217

• Decision Date: 05 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 36217,36217
• Citation: 275 P.2d 325
• Parties: TULSA CITY LINES, Inc. a Corporation, and Charles R. Pounds, Plaintiffs in Error. v. Patricia GEIGER, an infant suing by George Geiger, her father and next friend, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 325

275 P.2d 325

1954 OK 263

TULSA CITY LINES, Inc. a Corporation, and Charles R. Pounds Plaintiffs in Error. v. Patricia GEIGER, an infant suing by George Geiger, her father and next friend, Defendant in Error.

No. 36217.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 5, 1954.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Physician's testimony nearly two years after the collision, that plaintiff suing for personal injuries was then suffering pain in the neck, and that the pain would continue and be disabling without medication, and if unresponsive to medication, surgery and severance of nerve fiber would be required, held sufficient to justify instructing jury on future pain and suffering and permanent injury.

2. Instructions must be considered as a whole and construed together, and while a single instruction standing alone may be subject to some criticism, yet, when the instructions, taken together in their entirety, fairly submit the issues to the jury, the judgment of the trial court on the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed. It is not necessary that any particular paragraph of the instructions contain all the law of the case; it is sufficient if, when taken together and considered as a whole, they fairly present the law applicable to the issues in the pleadings upon which competent evidence has been introduced.

3. In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained, the court will not grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages unless the amount awarded be so extravagant as to clearly show that the jury was actuated by passion, partiality or prejudice.

Rucher & Tabor, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

Moseley & Raynolds, J. W. Hastain, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

WELCH, Justice.

The minor plaintiff, by her father and next friend, sued the defendants for damages alleging negligence of the defendants in the operation of a bus and resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff. Trial resulted in verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of $16,000.

In appeal the defendants contend the trial court erred in the giving of certain instructions to the jury concerning permanent injuries and future pain and suffering, in that there was not evidence to establish these alleged items of damages to the plaintiff.

The record reflects that the plaintiff was riding in a station wagon when it was stopped for a stop light at a certain street interesection, and that shortly thereafter a bus being operated by the defendant ran into the rear end of the station wagon.

The plaintiff testified that upon such collision she was thrown from her seat in the station wagon and to the floor of the vehicle; that after the collision and during the day thereof her neck became stiff and sore and that such condition persisted for several weeks, accompanied with dizziness and headaches at times. That throughout the time since the collision she has, intermittently, suffered a stiffness and pain in her neck, and headaches.

Trial of the case was approximately two years after the collision. The plaintiff was examined by physicians shortly before the trial date. According to testimony of such examining physicians the plaintiff was then suffering from 'an acute traumatic suboccipital neuritis.' Under history given by the plaintiff, the said examining physicians assigned the collision of defendant's bus with the station wagon as the causative factor of the plaintiff's condition. One of the examining physicians testified that plaintiff's injury was of a type that is accompanied by a great deal of pain and discomfort and frequent headaches. Further concerning the plaintiff's injury the witness testified:

'In this type of injury we usually try conservative treatment first consisting of heat, various local counter-irritants such as oil of wintergreen applied locally with rather massive doses of B-1 applied intravenously. If the pain is not relieved by this method, then head traction, using a halter is tried and then if this fails the usual routine procedure is used, injection or cutting of the suboccipital nerves. This type of entity might be quite resistant to treatment and the possibility of a cervical disk has to be considered if it does persist over a period of months.'

Concerning the plaintiff, another examining physician testified:

'Diagnosis in this case was neuritis of the cervical nerve * * * We feel at the present time that this patient still has some intermittent pain and mild disability. It may be necessary to consider the use of further treatment in her case, such as the use of propocaine injection or section or division of the occipital nerve.'

Under the plaintiff's testimony and the physicians' supporting testimony that plaintiff has suffered pain in the neck since the collision, and the physicians' testimony that such pain will continue in the future...