Opinion
No. 40967.
February 2, 1959.
1. Appeal — damages — comparative negligence — judgment on verdict for $10,000 for wrongful death would not be reversed and remanded on issue of damages alone.
Judgment on verdict for $10,000 for wrongful death of driver of fire truck, which collided with freight train, would not be reversed and remanded on issue of damages alone, on ground that damages were so grossly inadequate as to demonstrate bias and prejudice on part of jury, and on ground that instructions were erroneous and so prejudicial that they affected amount of verdict, where undisputed testimony reflected, and jury evidently concluded that driver was negligent, and driver's widow submitted to jury a comparative negligence instruction, and there was no reversible error in the instructions. Sec. 1453, Code 1942; Rule 11, Supreme Court Rules.
Headnote as revised by Ethridge, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Copiah County; TOM P. BRADY, J.
Henley, Jones Henley, Hazlehurst; Heidelberg, Woodliff, Castle Franks, Jackson, for appellant.
I. Crossing was unusually dangerous. Atlantic Coast Lines v. Jones, 16 Ala. App. 447, 78 So. 645; Baumberg v. Northern Pac. RR. Co. (Mont.), 182 P.2d 851; Bradshaw v. City of Seattle, 43 Wn.2d 766, 264 P.2d 265, 42 A.L.R. 2d 800; Bush v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 289 P. 190; Case v. Northern Pac. Terminal Co. (Oregon), 160 P. 313; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Barnett (Ga. App.), 134 S.E. 126; Chesapeake O. RR. Co. v. Shanks (Ky.App.), 86 S.W.2d 128; Cleveland, C.C. I. RR. Co. v. Schneider, 45 Ohio St. 678, 17 N.E. 321; Cox's Admr. v. Cincinnati, N.O. T.P. Ry. Co. (Ky.App.), 37 S.W.2d 859; Donald v. G.M. O. RR. Co., 220 Miss. 714, 71 So.2d 776; Engberg v. Great Northern RR. Co., 207 Minn. 194, 290 N.W. 579, 154 A.L.R. 206; Fleming, Admrx. v. Mo. Ark. Ry. Co., 198 Ark. 290, 128 S.W.2d 896; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 36 L.Ed. 485, 12 S.Ct. 679; Green v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 199 P. 1059; G.M. O. RR. Co. v. Golden, 221 Miss. 253, 72 So.2d 446; G.M. O. RR. Co. v. Scott, 216 Miss. 532, 52 So.2d 878; Hancock v. I.C. RR. Co., 158 Miss. 666, 131 So. 83; Hawkins v. Mo. Pac. RR. Co. (Ark.), 228 S.W.2d 642; Hendrickson v. Union RR. Co., 17 Wn.2d 548, 136 P.2d 438, 161 A.L.R. 96; Hopkins v. B. O. RR. Co., 81 F.2d 894, 65 App. D.C. 167; Johnson v. Union P. RR. Co., 157 Kan. 633, 143 P.2d 630; Keturosky v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 116 N.E. 410; Koop v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 28 N.W.2d 687; Lesan v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 77 Maine 85; Loos v. Wheeling L.E.R. Co. (Ohio), 22 N.E.2d 217; L. N. RR. Co. v. Parks' Admr. (Ky.), 157 S.W. 27; McKay v. Hargis (Mich.), 88 N.W.2d 456; New Orleans N.E. RR. Co. v. Lewis, 214 Miss. 163, 58 So.2d 486; New York Cent. RR. Co. v. Powell, 221 Ind. 321, 47 N.E.2d 615; Nice v. Illinois Cent. RR. Co., 303 Ill. App.? 292, 25 N.E.2d 104; Panhandle Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ray (Tex.), 221 S.W.2d 936; St. Louis-S.F. RR. Co. v. Pufahl (Okla.), 45 P.2d 729; San Antonio A.P. Ry. Co. v. Graves Patterson (Tex.), 131 S.W. 613; Southern Ry. Co. v. Thacker's Admrx. (Ky.), 161 S.W. 236; Southwest Stone Co. v. Symons (Tex.), 237 S.W.2d 380; Squyres v. Baldwin, 191 La. 249, 181 So. 584, 185 So. 14; Thomasson v. Henwood, 235 Mo. App. 1211, 146 S.W.2d 88; Yeaman v. Storms, 358 Mo. 774, 217 S.W.2d 495; Aaron v. Martin (La.), 167 So. 106; Sec. 7775, Code 1942; Annos. 16 A.L.R. 1284; 71 A.L.R. pp. 168, 174-75; 161 A.L.R. 118; 24 A.L.R. 2d pp. 1169, 1172-74, 1178, 1184-86, 1189; 75 C.J.S., Railroads, p. 188 (Note 78); Vol. IX-B, Blashfield's Cyc. of Automobile Law Practice, Sec. 623 p. 408.
II. Instructions granted defendants on lookout were erroneous. Aycock v. Burnett, 157 Miss. 510, 128 So. 100; Bray v. St. L. S.F. RR. Co. (Mo.), 236 S.W.2d 758; Bryant v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 23 N.W.2d 174; Chesapeake O. RR. Co. v. Banks, 144 Ky. 137, 137 S.W. 1066; Chesapeake O. RR. Co. v. Coates, 271 Ky. 736, 113 S.W.2d 28; Chucklin v. Lowden, 309 Ill. App. 24, 32 N.E.2d 672; Daniel v. Livingston, 168 Miss. 311, 150 So. 662; Deiss v. Southern Pac. Co. (Nev.), 47 P.2d 928; Goodrich v. Sprague (Ill.), 26 N.E.2d 884; G.M. O. RR. Co. v. Scott, supra; Gulf Rfg. Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234; Hancock v. I.C. RR. Co., supra; Henderson Mathis v. Hines, 121 Miss. 339, 83 So. 589; Herrell v. St. L.S.F. RR. Co., 322 Mo. 551, 18 S.W.2d 481; Hines v. Moore, 124 Miss. 500, 87 So. 1; Hynek v. Kewaunee, G.B. W. Ry. Co., 251 Wis. 319, 29 N.W.2d 45; Illinois Cent. RR. Co. v. Brashier, 224 Miss. 588, 80 So.2d 739; Illinois Cent. RR. Co. v. Sanders, supra; Jansen v. Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 247 P.2d 581; McDonald v. Moore, 159 Miss. 326, 131 So. 824; Manseau v. Boston M. RR., 69 A.2d 613; Melton v. A.C.L.R. Co., 27 S.E.2d 490; Missouri Pac. RR. Co. v. Eubanks (Ark.), 139 S.W.2d 413; Missouri Pac. RR. Co. v. Trotter, 43 S.W.2d 762; M. O. RR. Co. v. Bryant, 159 Miss. 619, 132 So. 539; M. O. RR. Co. v. Johnson, 157 Miss. 266, 126 So. 827, 165 Miss. 397, 141 So. 581; Morris v. Boston M. RR. Co. (N.H.), 160 A. 52; New Orleans N.E. RR. Co. v. Lewis, supra; Pokora v. Wabash RR. Co., 91 A.L.R. 1049; Rhodes v. Fullilove, 161 Miss. 41, 134 So. 840; Robinson v. Colotta, 198 Miss. 800, 26 So.2d 66; Snyder v. Campbell, 145 Miss. 287, 110 So. 678, 49 A.L.R. 1402; Terry v. Smylie, 161 Miss. 31, 133 So. 662; Ulmer v. Pistole, 115 Miss. 485, 76 So. 522; Wheeler v. S.R. Co., 111 Miss. 528, 71 So. 812; 44 Am. Jur., Railroads, Sec. 510; 65 C.J.S., Sec. 5 p. 362.
III. Instruction No. 12 given for defendants erroneous on question of signals. Andrade v. Oahu Ry. Land Co., 27 Haw. 381; Bush v. Watkins, 224 Miss. 238, 80 So.2d 19; Cote v. Palmer (Conn.), 16 A.2d 595; Illinois Cent. RR. Co. v. Dillon, 111 Miss. 520, 71 So. 809; Illinois Cent. RR. Co. v. Mann, 141 Miss. 778, 106 So. 7; New Orleans N.E. RR. Co. v. Keller, 162 Miss. 392, 138 So. 358; Phillips v. Texas P. RR. Co., 223 S.W.2d 258; Spilman v. Gulf S.I. RR. Co., 173 Miss. 725, 163 So. 445; Annos. 5 A.L.R. 2d pp. 112, 133.
IV. Instruction No. 7 for defendants on preponderance of evidence erroneous. D'Antoni v. Teche Lines, 163 Miss. 668, 143 So. 415; Evans v. Rugee, 57 Wis. 623, 16 N.W. 49; Foley v. State, 11 Wyo. 464, 72 P. 627; Henderson v. Page (Tex.), 78 S.W.2d 293; Houston T.C.R. Co. v. Buchannan, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 165, 84 S.W. 1073; Kelch v. State, 55 Ohio St. 146, 45 N.E. 6, 60 Am. St. 680, 39 L.R.A. 737; Lawrence v. Goodwill, 44 Cal.App. 440, 186 P. 781; Pettus v. State, 200 Miss. 397, 27 So.2d 536; Powell v. J.J. Newman Lbr. Co., 174 Miss. 685, 165 So. 299; Rolfe v. Rich, 46 Ill. App. 406; Rosenbaum Bros. v. Levitt, 109 Iowa 292; Smith v. I.C. RR. Co., 343 Ill. App. 593, 99 N.E.2d 717; Texas Ind. Ins. Co. v. Holloway (Tex.), 30 S.W.2d 921; 53 Am. Jur., Sec. 744 p. 555; 32 C.J.S., Sec. 1018 p. 1044; Vol. I, Alexander's Miss. Jury Instructions, Secs. 1944-45 p. 555.
V. Defendants' instruction on mortality table constituted prejudicial error. Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. Jones, 144 Ala. 519, 21 So. 507; D'Antoniv. Teche Lines, supra; French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386; Edwards v. State, 47 Miss. 581; Harrison v. Gatewood, 211 Miss. 121, 51 So.2d 59; Hooks v. Mills, 101 Miss. 91, 57 So. 545; L.N.O. T. RR. Co. v. Whitehead, 71 Miss. 451, 15 So. 890, 42 Am. St. 472; Potera v. Brookhaven, 95 Miss. 774, 49 So. 617; Rolfe v. Rich, supra; Tucker v. Gurley, 179 Miss. 412, 176 So. 279; Williams v. State, 32 Miss. 389, 66 Am. Dec. 615; Sec. 1530, Code 1942; 53 Am. Jur., Sec. 597 p. 472.
VI. The Court erred in striking Count IV of plaintiff's declaration. Sec. 7776, Code 1942.
VII. Verdict inadequate. Coccora v. Vicksburg L. T. Co., 126 Miss. 713, 89 So. 257; Columbus Greenville Ry. Co. v. Duease, 142 Miss. 713, 108 So. 151; Illinois Cent. RR. Co. v. Sanders, supra; Kimbrough v. Ragsdale, 69 Miss. 674, 13 So. 830; Standard Coffee Co. v. Carr, 171 Miss. 714, 157 So. 685; Tonkel v. Y. M.V. RR. Co., 170 Miss. 321, 154 So. 351; Sec. 6998-36, Code 1942.
Byrd, Wise Smith, Jackson, for appellee.
I. Crossing was not unusually dangerous. Bush v. Southern Pacific Co., 289 P. 190; C. O. RR. Co. v. Shanks (Ky.), 86 S.W.2d 128; Donald v. G.M. O. RR. Co., 220 Miss. 714, 71 So.2d 776; Haynes-Walker Lbr. Co. v. Hankins, 141 Miss. 55, 105 So. 858; I.C. RR. Co. v. Sanders, 229 Miss. 139, 90 So.2d 366; Johnson v. Union Pacific, 143 P.2d 630; Keturosky v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 116 N.E.2d 410; Muniz v. Pan Handle Santa Fe RR. Co. (Tex.), 285 S.W.2d 809; Pan Handle Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ray, 221 S.W.2d 936; Southern Ry. Co. v. Thacker's Admrx. (Ky.), 161 S.W. 236; Southwest Stone Co. v. Syman (Tex.), 237 S.W.2d 380; Smith v. I.C. RR. Co., 343 Ill. App. 593, 99 N.E.2d 717; Spilman v. Gulf S.I. RR. Co., 173 Miss. 725, 163 So. 445; Tucker v. Duncan, 9 Fed. 867; McKay v. Hargis (Mich.), 88 N.W.2d 456; G.M. O. RR. Co. v. Golden, 221 Miss. 253, 72 So.2d 446; Secs. 7776, 8148, Code 1942.
II. Instructions granted defendant on lookout were correct. Hancock v. I.C. RR. Co., 158 Miss. 668, 131 So. 83; Henderson Mathis v. Hines, 121 Miss. 339, 83 So. 589; Mobile O. RR. Co. v. Johnson, 157 Miss. 266, 126 So. 827; M.O. RR. Co. v. Bryan, 159 Miss. 528, 132 So. 539.
III. Instruction No. 12 is correct. Columbus Greenville Ry. Co. v. Duease, 142 Miss. 713, 108 So. 151; I.C. RR. Co. v. Dillon, 111 Miss. 520, 71 So. 809; N.O. N.E. Ry. Co. v. Keller, 162 Miss. 392, 138 So. 358; 42 Words and Phrases (Supp. 14, 25), word "vehicle."
IV. Instruction No. 7 for defendants on preponderance of the evidence also correct. D'Antoni v. Teche Lines, 163 Miss. 668, 143 So. 415; Pettus v. State, 200 Miss. 397, 27 So.2d 536; Powell v. J.J. Newman Lbr. Co., 174 Miss. 685, 165 So. 299.
V. Defendant's instruction on mortality table was not erroneous. D'Antoni v. Teche Lines, supra; Tucker v. Gurley, 170 Miss. 412, 176 So. 279.
VI. The Court was correct in striking count IV of the plaintiff's declaration. Brown v. Texas P. RR. Co. (La.), 357 So. 682; Secs. 1454, 7776, Code 1942; 44 Am. Jur., Sec. 495 p. 733; Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.), p. 1724, word "vehicle."
VII. The verdict in this case was not inadequate.
A. The instructions bearing on damages were considered by the jury.
B. The jury would have been justified in finding defendants not guilty of negligence.
C. The jury was compelled to find the appellant's decedent guilty of negligence.
D. The Court should not disturb the verdict of a jury where evidence shows plaintiff was guilty of negligence and where plaintiff asks instructions under the comparative negligence statute, A.G.S.R. Co. v. Martin, 205 Miss. 851, 39 So.2d 501; Baird v. Harrington, 202 Miss. 112, 30 So.2d 82; Chapman v. Powers, 150 Miss. 687, 116 So. 609; Flynn v. Kurn, 183 Miss. 413, 184 So. 160; Gilliam v. Sykes, 216 Miss. 54, 61 So.2d 672; G. S.I. RR. Co. v. Adkinson, 117 Miss. 118, 77 So. 954; I.C. RR. Co. v. Roberson, 186 Miss. 507, 191 So. 494; N.O. N.E. RR. Co. v. Bruge, 191 Miss. 303, 2 So.2d 825; Pounders v. Day, 151 Miss. 438, 118 So. 298; Y. M.V. RR. Co. v. Lamensdorf, 180 Miss. 426, 177 So. 50; Secs. 8148, 8180, Code 1942; 5-A Am. Jur., Sec. 205 p. 355; 60 C.J.S., Sec. 371, et seq., p. 923; Vol. I, Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law Practice, Favored Vehicles, Sec. 802 p. 736.
Appellee railroad's freight train collided with a fire truck driven by Curtis Matheny, while he was answering a fire alarm in a city fire truck. The collision occurred at a crossing in the City of Columbia, Marion County, Mississippi, Matheny was killed, and this action was brought in the Circuit Court of Copiah County by appellant as the widow of the deceased, for herself and for the benefit of their two minor children, under the wrongful death statute. Miss. Code 1942, Sec. 1453. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff-appellant in the amount of $10,000. Defendants do not appeal. Mrs. Matheny, as appellant, argues that the case should be reversed and remanded on the issue of damages alone; they were so grossly inadequate as to demonstrate bias and prejudice on the part of the jury; and several instructions granted appellees were erroneous and so prejudicial to appellant that they affected the amount of the verdict awarded her.
(Hn 1) We have considered carefully the record and the briefs. The jury found that the railroad was negligent. But the undisputed testimony reflects, and the jury evidently concluded, that Matheny was negligent in driving upon the railroad right-of-way without slowing down, or even looking up the track until he was within a few feet of it, and in attempting to cross it at a fast rate of speed. Plaintiff submitted to the jury a comparative negligence instruction. Undoubtedly the negligence of Matheny explains the amount of the verdict. The jury had the right to weigh the respective negligence of the parties, and did so.
After careful consideration of the instructions, separately and in their entirety, we have concluded that there is no reversible error in them, in view of the facts developed in the record and found by the jury, and the judgment of the circuit court. Hence Rule 11 of this Court is in point: "No judgment shall be reversed on the ground of misdirection to the jury, . . . unless it shall affirmatively appear, from the whole record, that such judgment has resulted in a miscarriage of justice."
Affirmed.
Roberds, P.J., and Kyle, Arrington and Gillespie, JJ., concur.