Wood v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 119 Mo. App. 78,95 S.W. 946
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Decision Date: 07 May 1906
• Parties: WOOD v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

95 S.W. 946

119 Mo. App. 78

WOOD v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 7, 1906.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1906.

1. DAMAGES—PERSONAL INJURIES — LOSS OF EARNINGS.

Where, in an action for personal injuries, it appeared that plaintiff was a farmer owning 40 acres of land, that before the injury he did usual farm work, and that he gathered corn, hauled wood, and fed stock, and was a good workman, though there was no direct evidence as to what his general work was worth, an instruction authorizing the jury to allow plaintiff for any time he had been incapacitated from working at his usual avocation for a livelihood, was proper.

2. TRIAL—INSTRUCTIONS—INCONSISTENCY.

In an action for personal injuries, the court instructed for defendant that there was no evidence of "permanent" injury, and also instructed that the jury might consider the injury to plaintiff's health in the future. Held, that the instructions were not contradictory.

3. SAME—REQUESTS FOR INSTRUCTIONS ALREADY GIVEN.

It is not error to refuse requested instructions covered by those given.

4. APPEAL — REVIEW — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

A verdict will not be interfered with on appeal where there is any evidence to support it.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Caldwell County; J. W. Alexander, Judge.

Action by Henry L. Wood against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O. M. Spencer, N. O. Borders, O. J. Chapman, and Frank Sheetz & Sons, for appellant. James E. Watkins and John H. Taylor, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

The plaintiff was injured while a passenger on one of defendant's trains. He brought the present action for damages and recovered a judgment in the trial court for $1,100 and defendant appealed.

Since the verdict was for the plaintiff, we must accept the evidence in his behalf as establishing the facts in the case. From such evidence it appears that while plaintiff was traveling on defendant's train from the town of Breckenridge to Hamilton in Caldwell county, the train became derailed and the car in which plaintiff was riding was turned over. Plaintiff was thrown across the car, striking on his head, causing concussion of the brain. He was confined to his bed for about four weeks, and was attended by a physician. He had not recovered his normal condition of health at the time of the trial, nearly a year thereafter.

The first complaint made against the action of the trial court relates to the measure of damages as justified by the evidence. The court's instruction authorized the jury to allow plaintiff as a part of his damages, if he had been, or is, incapacitated to any extent from working at his usual avocation for a livelihood. The objection is that there was no evidence that plaintiff had a "usual avocation for a livelihood," or of the value of his vocation, or of his time, or labor. There was evidence tending to show that plaintiff was a farmer owning 40 acres of land; that before the injury he did usual farm work; that he had out 100 acres...