Vassia v. Highland Dairy Farms Co.

• Citation: 104 S.W.2d 686,232 Mo.App. 886
• Parties: MARY VASSIA, RESPONDENT, v. HIGHLAND DAIRY FARMS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND H. BARTLETT, DEFENDANTS, HIGHLAND DAIRY FARMS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT
• Decision Date: 04 May 1937
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

104 S.W.2d 686

232 Mo.App. 886

MARY VASSIA, RESPONDENT, v. HIGHLAND DAIRY FARMS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND H. BARTLETT, DEFENDANTS, HIGHLAND DAIRY FARMS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

May 4, 1937

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.--Hon. Robt. W. Hall, Judge.

REVERSED.

Judgment reversed.

C. A Geers for respondent.

(1) Johnson v. St. L. & S. Ry. Co., 173 Mo. 307, 73 S.W 173; Boenger v. Ziegenheim, 165 Mo.App. 331. (2) The assessment of damages is peculiarly for the jury. Emerson v. Mound City, 26 S.W.2d 767; Porter v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 28 S.W.2d 1035; Brenecke v. Ganahl Lumber Co., 44 S.W.2d 627; Brunk v. Hamilton, Brown Shoe Co., 66 S.W.2d 903; Jochens v. Melville, 22 S.W.2d 887; Allen v. Purvis, 30 S.W.2d 196; Schlue v. Mo. P. Trans. Co., 62 S.W.2d 934; Coffman v. Shell Pet. Co., 71 S.W.2d 97; O'Gara v. St. L. T. Co., 204 Mo. 724; Wenzel v. Busch, 259 S.W. 767; Johnson v. Kansas City Ry Co., 233 S.W. 942; Emerson v. Mound City, 26 S.W.2d 766. (3) Proximate cause is some act or omission, which in the natural order of things causes, or contributes to cause, injury, and without which injury would not have been sustained. Mattingly v. Broderick, 225 Mo.App. 377, 36 S.W.2d 415; Cable v. Johnson, 63 S.W.2d 433; Coble v. Frisco Ry. Co., 38 S.W.2d 1031; Halloway v. Barnes Gro. Co., 223 Mo.App. 1026, 15 S.W.2d 917; Alexander v. Forum Cafeteria, 225 Mo.App. 679, 37 S.W.2d 670; Hockaday v. Pipe Line Co., 66 S.W.2d 956; Nance v. Lansdell, 73 S.W.2d 346; Reugsegger v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 225 Mo.App. 211, 29 S.W.2d 221; Baries v. St. L. Ind. Pkg. Co., 46 S.W.2d 952. Negligent act creates liability, whether act was sole, or only contributing, cause of injury. Shopbell v. City of St. Joseph, 226 Mo.App. 1170, 49 S.W.2d 301; Scheibe v. Fruin Co., 324 Mo. 375, 23 S.W.2d 44; Davis v. Bucks S. & R. Co., 329 Mo. 1177, 49 S.W.2d 47; Phillips v. Yellow Cab Co., 225 Mo.App. 1172, 36 S.W.2d 419. In determining whether act of commission or omission directly resulted in injury, it is immaterial whether injury could have been anticipated. Scott v. M. K. T. Ry. Co., 224 Mo.App. 1, 22 S.W.2d 654; Moordale v. Park Rlty. Co., 58 S.W.2d 500; Sisk v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 67 S.W.2d 830; Thornton v. Union Elec. Co., 72 S.W.2d 161; Howard v. S. C. Sacks, Inc., 76 S.W.2d 461. Violation of ordinances generally held to be proximate cause of accident. Rayman v. Galvin, 229 S.W. 747; Lewis v. St. L. I. Pkg. Co., 3 S.W.2d 244; Stanley v. Helm, 204 Mo.App. 159, 223 S.W. 125; Roy v. North K. C. Dev. Co., 226 S.W. 965; Collins v. Kamper, 272 S.W. 1053. "Concurrent negligence," as distinguished from "joint negligence," arises where injury is proximately caused by concurrent wrongful acts or omissions of two or more persons acting independently. Berryman v. People's Motor Bus Co., 334 Mo. 115. One whose negligence combines with that of another to cause injury is liable though his negligence alone would not have produced injury. State ex rel. v. Haid, 333 Mo. 76, 62 S.W.2d 400; Ritz v. Cousin Lbr. Co., 227 Mo.App. 1167, 59 S.W.2d 1072. Neither of two defendants obligated to act to avoid injury can escape liability by showing that injury would not have happened without co-defendant's negligence. Neal v. Curtis & Co., 328 Mo. 389, 41 S.W.2d 543; Byars v. St. L. P. S. Co., 334 Mo. 278, 66 S.W.2d 894; Phillips v. Yellow Cab Co., 225 Mo.App. 1172, 36 S.W.2d 419; Mattingly v. Broderick, 225 Mo.App. 377, 36 S.W.2d 415; Berryman v. People's Motor Bus Co., 334 Mo. 115. Negligence charged which must be shown by the evidence to have resulted in injury need not be sole or independent proximate cause of injury, but may be one of two concurrent acts of negligence proximately causing injury. O'Bauer v. Katz Drug Co., 49 S.W.2d 1065. As against one injured by concurrent, or joint tort-feasors, each guilty of negligence constituting a proximate cause, neither can cast the liability on the other. Neal v. Curtis Co., 41 S.W.2d 543; Bradley v. Becker, 11 S.W.2d 8; Waller v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 59 Mo.App. 410. A driver may not pursue his course in the center of the road, without turning to the right, merely because there is sufficient room for an approaching vehicle to pass without collision. Hayden v. McColly, 166 Mo.App. 675, 150 S.W. 1132. (4) Intervening cause will not excuse first cause, unless so unusual as not to have been reasonably foreseen by ordinarily prudent man. Coy v. Dean, 4 S.W.2d 835. Original cause sufficient to produce injury will be considered "proximate cause" if effect is merely accelerated by new cause. Cregger v. City of St. Charles, 11 S.W.2d 750. Where a person doing an act knows, or by the exercise of reasonable foresight should have known, that in event of subsequent occurrence likely to happen, injury may result from act, act committed is negligent and will be deemed "proximate cause" of resulting injury. Thornton v. U. E. L. & P. Co., 72 S.W.2d 161; Howard v. S. C. Sacks, Inc., 76 S.W.2d 460. (5) Contributory negligence must be pleaded to be available as a defense. Gregery v. Jenkins, 43 S.W.2d 877; Norton v. Hains, 211 Mo.App. 438, 245 S.W. 346; Baldwin v. K. C. Ry. Co., 231 S.W. 280; Graham v. Sly, 177 Mo.App. 348, 164 S.W. 136; George v. Frisco, 225 Mo. 364, 125 S.W. 196; Jewell v. K. C. Co., 231 Mo. 175, 132 S.W. 703; Peterson v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 462, 178 S.W. 182; Keinlein v. Foskin, 13 S.W.2d 648. Where defendant relies on contributory negligence as a defense, the facts constituting such negligence must be pleaded. Harrison v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 74 Mo. 364; Stewart v. Q. O. & K. C. Ry. Co., 142 Mo.App. 322, 126 S.W. 1003. Question of contributory negligence involves consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. English v. Sahlender, 47 S.W.2d 150; Myers v. Hauser, 61 S.W.2d 214; Sisk v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 67 S.W. 830. One required to act suddenly and in the face of imminent danger need not act as if he had time for deliberation and exercise of judgment. Clark v. Bridge Co., 324 Mo. 544, 24 S.W.2d 143; Menard v. Goltra, 40 S.W.2d 1053; Mayne v. May Stern Co., 21 S.W.2d 211; Carter v. Wells, 40 S.W.2d 725. One need not look for danger where there is no reason to apprehend it. Essenpreis v. Dept. Store Co., 330 Mo. 959, 51 S.W.2d 1015. In determining guest's contributory negligence, his situation and duty must be considered as of the time danger presented itself. Kaley v. Huntley, 333 Mo. 771, 63 S.W.2d 21. Failure of automobile guest to warn driver that car was approaching, when driver knew, is not contributory negligence. Rosenstein v. Lewis Automobile Co., 34 S.W.2d 1023.

Jones, Hocker, Gladney & Jones, Web A. Welker and Arnot L. Sheppard for appellant.

(1) Porter v. Ry., L. H. & P. Co., 311 Mo. 66; Price v. Railway Co., 220 Mo. 454; Allen v. Quercus Lumber Co., 190 Mo.App. 399, 406; Owens v. McLeary (Mo.), 281 S.W. 681, 685; Mulderig v. Railway Co., 116 Mo.App. 655, 667-8; Sommers v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 319, 324; Allen v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. (Mo.), 294 S.W. 80, 87; Feldewerth v. R. R., 181 Mo.App. 630, 638 et seq.; Lee v. Shryack-Wright Grocery Co., 53 S.W.2d 406; Beave v. Transit Co., 212 Mo. 331, 351-2-3; Wood v. Wells, 270 S.W. 332; State ex rel. Boeving v. Cox, 276 S.W. 869; Kennedy v. Independent Quarry & Construction Co., 291 S.W. 475; George v. St. Louis Mfg. Co., 159 Mo. 333. (2) Ulmer v. Farnham, 28 S.W.2d 113. (3) Rohrmoser v. Household Finance Corp., 86 S.W.2d 103, 112; State ex rel. v. Allen, 85 S.W.2d 63; Kaley v. Huntley (Mo.), 63 S.W.2d 21, 24; Lewis v. Kansas City Public Service Co. (K. C. Ct. App.), 17 S.W.2d 359, 362; Wood v. Wells (Mo.), 270 S.W. 332; Rice v. White (Mo.), 239 S.W. 141, 144-5; Williams v. Brennan, 213 Mass. 28, 99 N.E. 516; Stebbins & Kolb v. Doane, 84 Pa. Sup. 495; Hayden v. McColly, 166 Mo.App. 675, 150 S.W. 1132, 1134. (4) Porter v. Ry., L. H. & P. Co., 311 Mo. 66; Price v. Railway Co., 220 Mo. l. c. 454; Roscoe v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 202 Mo. 576, 587; McAnany v. Shipley, 189 Mo.App. 396, 400; McManamee v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 135 Mo. 440, 447; Barrett v. The Star Paper Mill Co., 149 Mo.App. 498; Ritz v. Cousins Lumber Co., 227 Mo.App. 1167, 1179; McCullough v. Powell Lumber Co., 205 Mo.App. 15, 23, and cases cited. (1) Iman v. Walter Freund Bread Co., 58 S.W.2d 477, 481, 332 Mo. 467; Shaughnessy v. Morrison (Conn.), 165 A. 553, 554-5; (2) Hayden v. McColly, 150 S.W. 1132, 166 Mo.App. 675; Shaughnessy v. Morrison (Conn.), 165 A. 553, 554-5; Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546, 152 Eng. Rep. 588; Osbun v. De Young, 99 N.J. L. 204, 122 A. 809, 812.

McCULLEN, J. Hostetter, P. J., and Becker, J., concur.

OPINION

McCULLEN, J.--

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by respondent plaintiff as the result of negligence on the part of appellant defendant Highland Dairy Farms Company and one Harlan Bartlett. The cause was tried before the court and a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of respondent in the sum of $ 7500 against both defendants. Highland Dairy Farms Company alone appeals.

The second amended petition of respondent alleged, in substance that at 3:30 o'clock A. M. on the 16th of August, 1933, respondent was riding as an invited guest in an automobile owned by defendant Bartlett, which was then being driven by Bartlett eastwardly on Lindell Boulevard between Kingshighway Boulevard and Lake Avenue, all open public streets in the city of St. Louis, Missouri; that when said automobile was at a point one hundred feet east of Lake Avenue, a horse drawn vehicle (a milk wagon) of the appellant and the automobile of defendant Bartlett, through the concurring negligence of appellant and said Bartlett, collided together causing the automobile in which respondent was riding...