Wall v. Van Meter
| Decision Date | 14 October 1949 |
| Citation | 223 S.W.2d 734,311 Ky. 198 |
| Parties | WALL v. VAN METER. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
C Cyrus Wall sued Dean Van Meter, doing business as Capital Taxi Company, for personal injuries and medical expenses incurred as the results of being struck by defendant's taxicab.
From a judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, W. B Ardery, J., on a jury's verdict for plaintiff in the amount of his medical expenses only, he appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Sims, J., reversed the judgment, holding that the verdict was erroneous as awarding nothing for plaintiff's pain and suffering, proved by uncontradicted testimony, and ignoring the trial court's instruction.
Leslie W. Morris, Frankfort, Marion Rider Frankfort, for appellant.
Funk, Chancellor & Darnell, Frankfort, for appellee.
Appellant, C. Cyrus Wall, instituted this action to recover $5000 damages for personal injuries due to a broken leg and $115 for medical expenses incurred as the result of being struck by a taxicab of appellee on Sept. 16, 1946, at the intersection of Main and Ann Streets in Frankfort. The jury returned a verdict for appellant in the sum of $98, the exact amount the testimony shows he expended for medical treatment. The grounds urged for a reversal of the judgment are not only inadequacy in damages, Civil Code of Practice § 340(4), but also the failure of the jury to award any damages for pain and suffering.
The uncontradicted testimony shows appellant was knocked down by a taxi of appellee at the time and place above indicated. He was immediately taken to the hospital where he was examined by Dr. Minish, who pronounced there was no fracture of appellant's leg and directed that he be taken to his home in a cab. Appellant remained in his home four days. It appears that Dr. Minish left town and the patient called in Dr. T. P. Leonard. An x-ray made by Dr. Leonard on Sept. 20th, four days after the injury, revealed a fracture of the tibia (the big bone below the knee) which extended into the knee joint. Dr. Leonard testified this injury was of recent origin and would disable the patient from six weeks to two months. He again x-rayed Mr. Wall's leg ten days or two weeks before the trial on Jan. 21, 1948, and found the fracture healed, unless there was an injury to the cartilage which an x-ray does not show unless the cartilage is calcified.
Dr. B. B. Baughman was called in to reduce the fracture. He put the leg in a plaster cast from the toes to the groin, which he kept on the patient for four weeks. Dr. Baughman agreed with Dr. Leonard that the x-ray taken shortly before the trial showed the facture had healed. It was his opinion the patient would suffer no permanent injury, unless the cartilage in the kneecap had been torn loose, which condition would not show in the x-ray but would be evidenced by the knee 'locking'. Dr. Baughman testified this injury could be permanent. He thought the cartilage could be removed by an operation but even then there might be some residual disability.
Mr. Wall testified that he suffered great pain with hi knee, was confined in the hospital five days and was off from work two weeks and two days. That when he resumed work he was compelled to give up a job which required him to be on his feet and do some walking and to take a desk job which carried a reduction in salary of $40 per month. He further testified that his knee still pains him and at times gives way without warning while he is walking.
Neither side complains of the instructions which included the duty of the driver of appellee's cab, a definition of ordinary care and which told the jury to find for Mr. Wall in the event it believed he was knocked down and injured as the result of the driver's negligence, unless it believed Wall was guilty of contributory negligence, in which event the jury would find for appellee. The instruction on the measure of damages told the jury if it found for Mr. Wall they would award him such a sum in damages as it believed from the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate him for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lamson, 88-2208-CR
...881, 886 (1967)). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See, e.g., Tarrell v. Erdmann, 221 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Iowa 1974); Wall v. Van Meter, 223 S.W.2d 734, 736 (1949). This principle provides the basis for the rule that an unobjected-to error in an instruction need not be addressed on appellate......
- Wall v. Van Meter
-
Hinkle v. Waddell
...a jury must make an award for pain and suffering if it awards medical expenses. It need only consider pain and suffering. Wall v. Van Meter, 223 S.W.2d 734 (Ky.1949) also does not announce such a proposition. In Wall, the court merely held that the trial court should have granted a new tria......
-
Owens v. Mayleben, No. 2006-CA-001291-MR (Ky. App. 11/21/2007)
...of damages for pain and suffering is for the purpose of compensation and thus constitutes compensatory damages. See Wall v. Van Meter, 223 S.W.2d 734,736 (Ky. 1949); McVey v. Berman, 836 S.W.2d 445, 449 (Ky.App. 1992); Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 83 S.W.3d 483, 494 n. 39 (Ky. ......