Witty v. Springfield Traction Co.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1911
• Citation: 153 Mo. App. 429,134 S.W. 82
• Parties: WITTY v. SPRINGFIELD TRACTION CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

134 S.W. 82

153 Mo. A. 429

WITTY v. SPRINGFIELD TRACTION CO.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 6, 1911.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1051) — REVIEW — HARMLESS ERROR — ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.

Where defendant stipulated that its liability should depend upon the outcome of an appeal in another case which was decided adversely to it, the reading of the stipulation and the mandate to the jury, neither of which showed the amount of damages, was not prejudicial, for the defendant had conceded its liability.

2. EVIDENCE (§ 548) — OPINION EVIDENCE — HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.

Where a physician who had treated an injured woman was asked as an expert what would be the effect of a woman being thrown out of a seat in a street car upon the lower end of her spine and buttocks, there was nothing in the question requiring him to commingle knowledge gained as a physician with his opinion as an expert.

3. EVIDENCE (§ 550) — OPINION EVIDENCE — EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS — OPINIONS BASED ON TESTIMONY OF OTHERS.

Where a plaintiff in a personal injury case had testified as to her fall from a seat in a street car, and had described the resultant injuries, the foundation was broad enough for expert medical opinion upon similar facts.

4. EVIDENCE (§ 528) — OPINION EVIDENCE — HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

A physician testifying as an expert with respect to a described injury may give the probable results of the injury, or the causes which might produce certain described conditions.

5. EVIDENCE (§ 560) — EXPERTS — BIAS.

In an action for personal injuries, where the testimony of a medical expert for defendant conflicted with that of the expert for plaintiff, it was permissible to contradict him by reason of bias that he held a similar position with a mining company.

6. DAMAGES (§ 130) — MEASURE — EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.

An award of $1,500 damages was not excessive where it appeared that before the accident plaintiff, a woman, was in good health and could do housework, but that since she has been nervous and constantly suffered pain, and that her bowels have not properly performed their function, owing to an injury to her spine.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; James T. Neville, Judge.

Action by Maud E. Witty against the Springfield Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Delaney & Delaney, for appellant. Leonard Walker and Frank B. Williams, for respondent.

COX, J.

Action for damages for an injury resulting to plaintiff from a collision of defendant's street car with an iron electric tower in the center of the square in the city of Springfield. As a result of this collision plaintiff alleges that she was thrown from her seat and was seriously injured, having received a serious blow in the back, another in the region of the abdomen, another in the region of the lower end of the spine, as a result of which she had become impaired in health, her nervous system was shocked, and she had become an invalid, and would remain so during her life. Trial by jury and verdict for plaintiff for $1,500, and defendant has appealed.

This is a companion case to the case of Wolven v. Springfield Traction Co., 143 Mo. App. 643, 128 S. W. 512, and, after the trial of the Wolven Case, the attorneys in this case filed a stipulation that this case should abide the decision in the Wolven Case, which had been appealed, and, if the judgment in that case should be affirmed, then the only question that should be tried in this case would be the question of damages. The Wolven Case was affirmed, and thereafter this case was called for trial, and at the trial this stipulation and also the mandate of the Court of Appeals showing the affirmance of the judgment in the Wolven Case were offered in evidence over defendant's objection, and this is now assigned as error. It is contended that the reading of this stipulation and the mandate to the jury were prejudicial to defendant. We are unable to see how this could be so, for defendant had already agreed that,...