Weatherly v. Miskle
| Decision Date | 02 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 45520,45520 |
| Citation | 655 S.W.2d 842 |
| Parties | Alfred M. WEATHERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas Eugene MISKLE, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Gerald K. Rabushka, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel E. Wilke, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.
This is an appeal from a cause of action arising out of an automobile collision in which the jury's verdict was in favor of the defendant-respondent and against plaintiff-appellant. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a letter written by a chiropractic doctor and sent through bulk mail advertising to attorneys. We affirm.
On June 4, 1980, appellant was operating his automobile in St. Charles County, Missouri. The appellant was stopped at a traffic signal when his automobile was struck from behind by an automobile operated by respondent. The impact of the collision caused appellant to strike the steering wheel and the roof of the car.
Respondent testified by deposition that it had been recently raining and the road was wet. Respondent further stated that while operating his vehicle, debris from passing vehicles splashed on his windshield. Respondent attempted to clear the debris by turning on his wipers but this resulted in smearing the windshield and obstructing his vision. When the debris finally cleared, respondent observed appellant's car in front of him but was unable to stop his vehicle in time to prevent the accident. Respondent estimated he was traveling at 30-35 miles per hour when first viewing appellant's vehicle.
Subsequently, appellant was taken by ambulance to St. Joseph's Hospital in St. Charles. At St. Joseph's, appellant was x-rayed and given instructions to apply ice and then heat to his neck and lower back. Upon leaving the hospital appellant was treated by Dr. William Schierman. After three visits, Dr. Schierman determined that no permanent injury resulted from the accident. One month later, appellant visited Anthony Sciortino, a chiropractic doctor. Dr. Sciortino testified by deposition that the accident of June 4 caused injuries to appellant's spine, neck and back and that these injuries are permanent.
On behalf of the respondent, appellant was examined by Dr. Edwin Carter, a medical doctor specializing in orthopedic surgery. Dr. Carter found no objective signs of any residual disability from the accident and no permanent disability.
Robert Holdman, a records custodian for Commercial Letter, Inc., also testified by deposition on behalf of respondent. He appeared in response to a subpoena duces tecum for records of mail advertising done by Dr. Sciortino. Holdman produced a four paragraph letter that was sent to Commercial Letter, Inc.'s mailing list of attorneys. On September 26, 1980 and September 29, 1980, Dr. Sciortino's letter was mailed to 2,081 attorneys. The letter reads as follows:
Enclosed is a brochure of the Northwest Chiropractic Centre which we hope you will find informative and interesting regarding the practice of Chiropractic.
At the Centre we have endeavored to keep pace with the evergrowing acceptance of Chiropractic in the field of personal injuries due to auto and work-accident injuries. We feel strongly confident that Chiropractic is able to provide the best possible care in a great majority of these accident cases.
We would be delighted to show you our office and demonstrate how Chiropractic can effectively treat conditions regarding post-injury care and discuss in detail Chiropractic's answer to soft tissue injury and other accident related problems.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
/s/ Anthony J. Sciortino, D.C.
Appellant alleges trial court error in admitting into evidence testimony pertaining to the fact that Dr. Sciortino, appellant's treating chiropractor, had caused a bulk mail advertisement to be sent to 2,081 attorneys listed in the yellow pages. It is appellant's contention that this evidence was irrelevant and served no other purpose than to prejudice the jury. We disagree.
While it is true that immaterial and incompetent evidence may not be brought before the jury under the guise that it impeaches or discredits the witness, Brug v. Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company, 461 S.W.2d 269 (Mo. banc 1970), the determination of whether proffered evidence is relevant is, in the first instance, within the sound discretion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elam v. Alcolac, Inc.
...is proper cross-examination. The pecuniary interest, or bias or prejudice, of a witness can always be shown. Weatherly v. Miskle, 655 S.W.2d 842, 844[3, 4] (Mo.App.1983). So, the court may, in its discretion, allow cross-examination of an expert witness to show pecuniary interest, or bias o......
-
Menschik v. Heartland Reg'l Med. Ctr.
...may not be brought before the jury under the guise that it impeaches or discredits the witness.") (quoting Weatherly v. Miskle, 655 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) ). In addition, to the extent that these exhibits could provide further evidence of the number of times Dr. Young had been......
-
Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp.
...jury has the responsibility to determine the credibility and weight it should give to an expert's testimony. See also Weatherly v. Miskle, 655 S.W.2d 842 (Mo.App.1983). Fifth, SLU contends that Danny's counsel improperly injected another pending lawsuit into evidence. During cross-examinati......
-
Hurlock v. Park Lane Medical Center, Inc.
...of a witness is not deemed to be a collateral matter. Thornton v. Vonallman, 456 S.W.2d 795 (Mo.App.1970); and Weatherly v. Miskle, 655 S.W.2d 842 (Mo.App.1983). The perimeters of the exception purportedly relied on by respondent hospital are drawn by the test for determining what constitut......