Opinion
July 3, 1928.
1. APPEAL: Extraneous Paper: Stricken from Files. A paper, not a part of the record, if once stricken from the files, cannot be considered, but the order stands.
2. NEGLIGENCE: Reasonable Care: Vigilant Watch: Broadening Issue. Where the petition charged that defendant "negligently and carelessly failed to exercise reasonable care to keep a watch for persons on the street," an instruction authorizing a verdict for plaintiff if defendant "negligently failed to keep a reasonably vigilant watch for persons on the street" is not broader than the allegation, and is not error, where the accident occurred at an intersection of streets heavily burdened with traffic at all times. Under such circumstances a reasonably vigilant watch on the part of the driver of the automobile is but the exercise of ordinary care.
3. ____: ____: ____: Degree of Care: Heavy Street Traffic. Where the evidence tenders no issue as to the amount of traffic at the intersection of three streets, but the defendant himself testifies that he was perfectly familiar with the situation; that there was a great deal of traffic, and many automobiles passing there; that he saw a woman standing in the street thirty or forty feet east of the cross street, which was near the place where passengers boarded street cars; that his automobile was then approaching said cross street, and that there was a decided curve in the street car line at that point, the question of care, under an allegation of failure "to exercise reasonable care to keep a watch for persons on the street," is one of degree, and not of kind, and an instruction submitting the negligence as failure "to keep a reasonably vigilant watch for persons on the street" is harmless, if it could be said to be broader than the allegation.
4. EXCESSIVE VERDICT: Permanent Injuries. Plaintiff was forty-seven years of age. She was knocked unconscious by defendant's automobile, and dragged fifty feet. When it was stopped, she was underneath, her hair wrapped around the gearings. She suffered internal injuries, and innumerable cuts, bruises and abrasions on her head, body and limbs. Bones were broken, deformities created and nerves shattered permanently. She was in a hospital five weeks, and at the trial was still in a very nervous condition. Held, that a verdict for $7915.66 was a modest award for her injuries.
5. ATTORNEY: Misconduct: No Specific Assignment. A complaint that respondent's attorney was guilty of misconduct during the cross-examination of the appellant and his witnesses, cannot be considered if not assigned as error in the motion for a new trial.
6. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE: General Assignment. The appellant is not required to specify in his motion for a new trial the particular evidence referred to as incompetent, but an assignment therein that the court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial evidence over the objection and exception of appellant is sufficient.
7. ____: Immaterial: Due Diligence in Serving Subpoena. A cross-examination of defendant and the process-server pertaining to the diligence of the process-server in serving subpoenas issued for witnesses who had testified at a former trial of the case, in an effort to show bad faith on the part of defendant in having subpoenas issued for them, in that his purpose was that their former testimony might be read and their cross-examination eluded, relates to an immaterial matter, but having been stricken out, its admission on an unfulfilled promise that its materiality would be made to appear, was not prejudicial, in view of the modest damages awarded plaintiff by the verdict.
Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Appeal and Error, 3 C.J., Section 814, p. 916, n. 9; Section 881, p. 978, n. 38; Section 1469, p. 1336, n. 5; 4 C.J., Section 2581, p. 679, n. 43; Section 3013, p. 1029, n. 30. Damages, 17 C.J., Section 408, p. 1091, n. 85. Motor Vehicles, 42 C.J., Section 582, p. 879, n. 76; Section 688, p. 960, n. 29; Section 1053, p. 1242, n. 96; Section 1139, p. 1275, n. 96. Witnesses, 40 Cyc., p. 2493, n. 37.
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. Franklin Miller. Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Caulfield Bartlett for appellant.
(1) Instruction 2 was erroneous, because: It broadened the issue as made by the pleading in that while the petition charged negligence in "failing to exercise reasonable care to keep a watch for persons on the street," this instruction required a verdict for plaintiff if defendant "negligently failed to keep a reasonably vigilant watch for persons on the street." McKenzie v. Randolph, 257 S.W. 126; Smith v. Railroad, 126 Mo. App. 120; Heinzle v. Railway, 182 Mo. 528. It imposed upon the defendant the duty of exercising a higher degree of care than the law required of him at the time of this accident, in that it required him to "keep a reasonably vigilant watch for persons on the street," while the law required him to exercise only ordinary care to keep a watch for persons on the street. Grossman v. Wells, 282 S.W. 714; Laws 1917, p. 413, sec. 11; State ex rel. Vogt v. Reynolds, 295 Mo. 375; Kaemerer v. Wells, 252 S.W. 732; Huddy, Automobiles, sec. 339; Berry. Automobiles, secs. 153, 301; Theobald v. Transit Co., 191 Mo. 439. (2) The defendant did not have a fair trial, because of the grave misconduct of plaintiff's counsel. (3) It was error and an abuse of discretion, for the court to permit, over defendant's objections, the examination of the witnesses Masterson, Lancaster and Bogy, as to what efforts had been made to secure the attendance of the witness Lancaster, she being present under defendant's subpoena, such examination being apparently irrelevant and presumably incompetent, and there being no statement or showing of how it would be made competent. Jones, Evidence, sec. 813; Brown v. Carson, 132 Mo. App. 378. And this error was not cured by the belated action of the court at the close of the whole case in sustaining defendant's motion to strike out this irrelevant and prejudicial testimony. Jones, Evidence, sec. 813; State v. Bateman, 198 Mo. 212; State v. Thomas, 99 Mo. 235; State v. Minor, 193 Mo. 597; O'Hara v. Construction Co., 197 S.W. 165; Collier v. City of Shelbyville, 219 S.W. 713. (4) The amount of the verdict is excessive; it is so excessive as to evince bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. (a) The courts of last resort in this State have frequently condemned awards much less extravagant, in view of the injuries sustained, than the award in this case. Nicholas v. Plate Glass Co., 126 Mo. 55; Burdict v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 236; Harris v. Street Ry., 168 Mo. App. 340; Aaron v. Railway Co., 159 Mo. App. 307; Dominick v. Coal Mining Co., 255 Mo. 466; Applegate v. Railroad, 252 Mo. 201; Welborn v. Street Railway, 170 Mo. App. 354; Jewell v. Bolt Nut Co., 245 Mo. 726; Dent v. Traction Co., 145 Mo. App. 72; Zeiler v. Railroad, 153 Mo. App. 620; Johnson v. Brick Coal Co., 205 S.W. 543; Patashnick v. Wells, 273 S.W. 777; Powell v. Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 916; Holland v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 257 S.W. 202. (b) In cases of large verdicts, our courts have always looked closely to incidents of the trial, not arising, maybe, to the dignity of reversible error, but naturally registering results in swollen damages. Bragg v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 192 Mo. 365; Wojtylak v. Coal Co., 188 Mo. 285; Applegate v. Railroad, 252 Mo. 201.
Brackman, Hausner Versen for respondent.
(1) Instruction 2 did not broaden the issues. It was predicated on the character of "watch" required to be kept under the common law in a built-up business district where three important streets converge with a double-track street car line running on, into or through all streets, and where there was much traffic from five directions. The instruction required the jury to find that defendant "negligently failed to keep a reasonable vigilant watch;" whereas the common law required him to keep a "vigilant watch ahead," and the statute required him to see the plaintiff. The instruction requiring of defendant that he keep a "reasonably vigilant watch," instead of an unqualified "vigilant watch," or to "see" plaintiff, was more favorable to the defendant than the law required, instead of imposing a higher duty on him. State ex rel. Vogt v. Reynolds, 244 S.W. 932; Ostermeier v. Implement Co., 255 Mo. 128; McFern v. Gardner, 121 Mo. App. 1; Bongner v. Ziegenhein, 165 Mo. App. 328. (2) There is no assignment in the motion for new trial that plaintiff's counsel was guilty of "grave misconduct" in asking irrelevant, prejudicial questions of witnesses, which injected incurable "poison" in the minds of the jury. The precise error complained of must be "pointedly" set out in the motion for new trial, before this court will consider same. Sec. 1267, R.S. 1919; Bouillon v. Gas Light Co., 165 Mo. App. 320; State v. Scott, 214 Mo. 257; Carver v. Thornhill, 53 Mo. 283; Stone v. Wolfskill Bros., 59 Mo. App. 441; Sweet v. Maupin, 65 Mo. 65; Lynch v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 44; Polski v. St. Louis, 264 Mo. 458. (3) The failure of a party to produce a friendly witness having direct knowledge of material facts, at the trial, so that the jury may see the witness and hear his testimony and the opposite party cross-examine him before the jury, and thereby have opportunity to determine the credibility of the witness, raises a presumption that the "defense is not made in good faith," as well as that the testimony of the witness would be unfavorable to him. Any effort to explain such failure to produce such friendly witness is subject to the same rules of evidence and of cross-examination as other evidence in the case and is for the jury, and is in no sense privileged, as appears to be claimed. Bryant v. Lazarus, 235 Mo. 606; Willitts v. Railroad, 221 S.W. 66; McCord v. Schaff, 279 Mo. 558; State ex rel. Shawhan v. Ellison, 200 S.W. 1044. (4) The verdict was not excessive. The verdict was for less than one-third the amount the jury could have given her under the pleadings and instructions, and the amount does not show the jury was biased and prejudiced in any way. Hurst v. Railway, 219 S.W. 568; Lane v. Railway, 228 S.W. 870; Varley v. Taxicab Co., 240 S.W. 228; Rigley v. Prior, 323 S.W. 832.
This is a suit for personal injuries, alleged to be the result of plaintiff having been struck by defendant's automobile. Verdict was for $7915.66, judgment accordingly, and defendant appealed.
The case has been in the Court of Appeals, and we shall appropriate, in part, the statement of facts as given in the opinion of that court (277 S.W. 601), as follows:
"This accident occurred at the intersection of Prairie, Cass and Easton avenues, in the city of St. Louis, on January 20, 1921, between 8:30 and nine o'clock P.M. Easton Avenue runs northwesterly and Cass Avenue westwardly, while Prairie runs north and south. Easton and Cass avenues intersect, forming a wedge, the point of which is about 150 feet cast of Prairie.
"Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that she and Mrs. Edith Fontana were waiting to board a westbound Wellston car. They were standing at the usual stopping place for westbound cars, such point being in the middle of Easton Avenue and opposite a yellow post which was on the south side of the street and twenty-five feet east of Prairie Avenue. Having observed a westbound car approaching, Mrs. Fontana stepped to one side and motioned for it to stop, at which time plaintiff was struck and did not regain consciousness until after she was removed to the hospital. Plaintiff herself had been looking continually toward the east and did not know what struck her, but her witnesses disclosed that an eastbound automobile (which later proved to be that of defendant), coming from the west on Easton on the eastbound car track and running at a speed of thirty-five or forty miles an hour, turned to the left towards Cass Avenue as it crossed Prairie and struck the plaintiff. This machine was stopped at a point twenty-five feet north of the westbound car track, and twenty-five or forty feet west of the point of the wedge made by the intersection of Cass and Easton avenues. Shortly thereafter the westbound street car came up to the corner and was also stopped. A crowd of people gathered around the automobile, and six or eight men lifted the rear and so that plaintiff, who was lying under the rear axle, might be extracted. There was considerable difficulty in getting her out, because her hair was twisted around the gearings.
"The plaintiff and her companion were standing in such a position that the light from a soft drink parlor on the northwest corner of Easton and Prairie avenues shown upon them. Because of the curve in the track, the headlight of the approaching Wellston car did not strike them. The lights of defendant's automobile were burning."
Defendant and his witnesses denied that his car struck plaintiff; that she was underneath his car, or that his car was lifted off of her body. Other facts may be noted.
I. Defendant contends that we should consider a statement of the plaintiff, in writing, made to the United Railways Company, with reference to an injury to plaintiff incident to a collision on April 6, 1926, between an automobile in which she was riding and a street car. Defendant filed a motion, with a Paper copy of the statement attached, in this court, Stricken praying a consideration of the statement as from Files. newly-discovered evidence. On motion of plaintiff said motion and statement were stricken from the files. This order stands, and the statement cannot be considered on this review.
II. The case was submitted on the charges of a violation of a speed ordinance, and that defendant negligently failed to exercise reasonable care to keep a watch for persons on the street waiting for a street car.
Plaintiff's Instruction No. 2 is as follows:
"The court instructs the jury that if you find and believe from the evidence that on the evening of January 20, 1921, the plaintiff was intending to board a westbound Wellston street car, and was standing at or about the usual waiting Reasonable place for persons intending to board westbound Care: Vigilant Wellston street cars at the junction of Easton, Watch. Cass and Prairie avenues; and if you further find that the defendant was driving an automobile eastwardly on Easton Avenue, and drove same across Prairie Avenue into said junction of Easton, Cass and Prairie avenues, and that he ran said automobile against the plaintiff and knocked her down and dragged and injured her; and if you further find that the plaintiff was in the path of said automobile, and the defendant, at said time and place, negligently failed to keep a reasonably cigilant watch for persons on the street, and because of such failure, if any, did not see the plaintiff standing in the street and in danger of being struck by said automobile, if you so find, and that such failure, if any, of defendant to keep a reasonably vigilant watch was the direct cause of defendant running said automobile against plaintiff, if you so find, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff and against the defendant." (Italics ours.)
Defendant complains of this instruction in that the petition alleges that defendant "negligently and carelessly failed to exercise reasonable care to keep a watch for persons on the street;" whereas, the instruction submits negligent failure "to keep a reasonably vigilant watch for persons on the street."
It is insisted the use of the word "vigilant" broadened the issue as made by the pleadings and imposed upon defendant the duty of exercising a higher degree of care than the law required of him under the circumstances.
The collision occurred before the Act of 1921 (Laws 1921, 1 Ex. Sess., p. 91) went into effect; therefore it was the duty of defendant to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. At an intersection of streets heavily burdened with traffic of all kinds, ordinary care requires of one operating a motor vehicle a vigilant watch for persons on the street; whereas, a lesser degree of care is required at an intersection lightly burdened with traffic. The degree of care required is a question for the jury. The word "vigilant" is qualified in the instruction by the word reasonably and does not as qualified require of defendant the highest degree of care or a fixed degree of care. A reasonably vigilant watch is the exercise of ordinary care under the same or similar circumstances. The expressions "reasonable care" and "ordinary care" are said to be interchangeable. [State ex rel. Grear v. Ellison, 182 S.W. l.c. 963.] While awkwardly drawn, the instruction was not prejudicial.
In addition, the evidence tenders no issue on the condition of traffic at the place of collision. All of the evidence tended to show the intersection was heavily burdened with traffic.
Defendant testified that he knew the location like a book; that there is a great deal of north-and-south automobile traffic on Prairie Avenue, but is more so on Easton Avenue than any other street; that there were a great many automobiles passing there all the time; that street cars were continually passing both ways, taking on and letting off passengers; that there was a decided curve in the car line at that point; that it was slick the night of the collision, and that he saw plainly one woman standing in the light in the street, thirty or forty feet east of Prairie Avenue, while he was in his car waiting west of said avenue. The error, if any, was harmless.
Attention is directed to the following cases: McKenzie v. Randolph, 257 S.W. 126; Smith v. Railroad, 126 Mo. App. 120, 103 S.W. 593; Heinzle v. Railroad, 182 Mo. 528, 81 S.W. 848. In those cases the instruction under consideration submitted a distinct and separate act of negligence not pleaded in the petition. They do not sustain defendant's contention, for the reason that in the instant case the question is one of degree and not of kind.
III. Defendant contends the verdict is excessive. Plaintiff was forty-seven years old. She was knocked unconscious by defendant's automobile and dragged fifty feet. When the automobile Excessive was stopped she was under the car with her hair Verdict. wrapped around the gearings, and tufts of hair had been pulled from her head. The car had to be lifted to release her. She suffered internal injuries and innumerable cuts, bruises and abrasions on her head, body and limbs. Bones were broken, deformities created and nerves shattered permanently. She was in a hospital five weeks, and at the time of the trial was still in a very nervous condition. Other details as to her injuries are not necessary. The evidence considered, it must be held that the amount awarded is a modest sum for her injuries.
IV. Defendant contends (a) that plaintiff's attorney was guilty of misconduct during the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses. This complaint is not assigned as Specific error in the motion for new trial, and must be put and General aside. (b) That the court erred in admitting Assignments. incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial testimony over the objections of defendant. The defendant is not required to specify in the motion for a new trial the particular evidence referred to as incompetent, and this assignment is sufficient. [Wampler v. Railroad, 269 Mo. l.c. 475, 190 S.W. 908.]
Mrs. Ward and Mrs. Lancaster testified for defendant at the first trial. Defendant had subpoenas issued for them in the instant case and delivered to Masterson, process-server. Mrs. Lancaster was subpoenaed after defendant learned plaintiff had subpoenaed her. Mrs. Ward could not be located, and her testimony was read.
Plaintiff contended the defendant preferred to read their testimony at the former trial rather than have them submitted to a cross-examination before the jury.
Plaintiff's cross-examination of defendant, Masterson and Mrs. Lancaster was an effort to show bad faith on the part of defendant in having subpoenas issued for Mrs. Ward and Mrs. Lancaster. These witnesses were cross-examined concerning Masterson's diligence in serving the subpoenas. Masterson was called first, and defendant objected to this line of inquiry on the ground the testimony sought to be elicited was not material. The court overruled the objection on the promise of plaintiff's attorney that its materiality would develop later. Defendant excepted then and, as the examination continued, again objected and excepted, and the court again overruled the objection on the same promise. This line of inquiry continued throughout the cross-examination of these witnesses. Defendant made other objections, but saved no exceptions. At the close of all the evidence, on motion of defendant, that part of the cross-examination of Masterson with reference to diligence in serving the subpoenas was stricken out, for the reason the plaintiff's attorney did not keep his promise to show materiality.
In this state of the record we are limited to a review of the action of the court in permitting this line of inquiry of the witness Masterson. The testimony was not material. In view of the amount awarded, we are convinced the admission of the testimony relating to the diligence of the process-server and the defendant in procuring the attendance of these witnesses was not prejudicial.
The record considered, we hold the defendant had a fair trial and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered. All concur.