Tyler v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
Decision Date | 16 March 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 21824,21824 |
Citation | 256 S.W.2d 563 |
Parties | TYLER v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles L. Carr, Hale Houts, Alvin C. Randall, Hogsett, Depping, Houts & James, Kansas City, for appellant.
O. Hampton Stevens, Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $2,500 and defendant has appealed. Plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's busses in Kansas City, Missouri. When the bus, proceeding in a westerly direction, reached a point between McGee Street and Grand Avenue, on Eleventh Street it came to a sudden and violent stop, as a result of which plaintiff was injured. Defendant makes no claim that plaintiff did not make a submissible case, nor does it assert that the verdict is excessive. It presents three points.
The first is that the court erred in refusing to grant it a new trial upon the ground that one of the jurors, Nelson F. Southard, failed and refused to answer when counsel asked all prospective jurors on the voir dire examination whether they had ever had a claim against defendant.
It was shown at the hearing on the motion for new trial that Juror Southard had received the sum of $75 from defendant for injuries sustained while a passenger on one of its street cars in September, 1947. When asked why he did not disclose that fact his answers were: It appeared that defendant's investigator had gone to Southard's home and paid him the $75, taking a release. He further testified that he had no ulterior motive in concealing the alleged claim and at no time had any malice or ill feeling against defendant.
The latest expression upon the question is by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Harrison v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 348. The situation in that case was almost identical to that disclosed in the case at bar. We quote from the Harrison opinion, 251 S.W.2d loc. cit. 351, as follows:
In our opinion, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that there was no intentional concealment on the part of Juror Southard. The cases of Piehler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 357 Mo. 866, 211 S.W.2d 459 and Bass v. Durand, 345 Mo. 870, 136 S.W.2d 988, relied upon by defendant involved situations far different from that in the instant case.
Defendant's second point is that the court 'erred in refusing to discharge the jury, or reprimand plaintiff's counsel, when he told the jury that plaintiff was required to support her two children.'
The transcript discloses that in the opening statement of plaintiff's attorney, after describing the manner in which plaintiff was hurt and the extent of her injuries, the following occurred.
'Mr. Stevens: (Plaintiff's Counsel) The evidence will be that Mrs. Tyler was unable to go back to work for three months, and the evidence will be that at that time she was divorced, or at least separated from her husband, and was supporting her two children----'
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had within the presence but without the hearing of the jury:)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bone v. General Motors Corp.
...the trial court than to us, and the overruling of the motion was within the range of its discretion. Compare Tyler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 256 S.W.2d 563, 565; Holtz v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., 357 Mo. 538, 209 S.W.2d 883, 885. The same is true of the argument about the ......
-
Consolidated Gas & Equipment Co. of America v. Carver
...Service Co., 361 Mo. 61, 233 S.W. 2d 679; Harrison v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 348; Tyler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 256 S.W.2d 563; Crutcher v. Hicks, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 539, 38 A.L.R.2d 620; Johnson v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo., 265 S.W.2d ......
-
Vaeth v. Gegg
...is subject of review by the appellate court only when abused to the prejudice of the party complaining." Tyler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 256 S.W.2d 563, 565. No abuse of trial court's discretion is shown in this The third trial error alleged by appellant relates to the fai......
-
Bell v. Sabates
...S.W.2d 785, 793 (Mo.1962); Williams ex rel. Wilford v. Barnes Hosp., 736 S.W.2d 33, 37 (Mo. banc 1987); Tyler v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 256 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo.App. W.D. 1953); Duffendack v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 365 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo.App. E.D.1963); Mantz v. Southwest Freight Line......