*1 FARMERS’ & MECHANICS’ NAT. BANK v. MARSHALL S.W.(Sid) <&wkey;>352(5) 6. Trial for person- action —Issue injury al elevator improper operation BANK v. MECHANICS’ NAT. FARMERS’ not held multifarious wheth- (No. 11885.) double MARSHALL. er elevator was whether moved moved and Appeals Fort Worth. suddenly. Texas. Civil Court of personal injury 10, 1927. action Dec. bank for In. allegedly negligent elevator, passenger eration of defendant’s Rehearing 1928. Denied Feb. charge submitting issue relative to defendant’s employee plaintiff while Overruling Damages to exception 1. 43 — Injury leaving it, allegation in inflamma- resulted being closed, catching issue as to door’s vague too soiatie nerve tion and held, foot, in- not as a double multifarious allegations. held not error, quiry whether the at all injury action, personal Jn and whether it was. moved being too exception vague to allegation being indefinite, objec- <&wkey;>23l(l) Appeai 7. and error —General injury and sore- resulted in tions to submission of issues held insufficient error, held, in view on appeal. not ness petition of other appeal injury personal On (cid:127) injuries. scribing the action, general issues the submission of to held, insufficient. Damages Overruling to exception <&wkey;I43 2. — legation to (.1)— 8. Appeal <&wkey;23 and error l to and per- lacerations of cervix general” operations issue that “too broad and too in view error, ineum too indefinite held not held too be considered. describing personal injury action, In to general” injury that it personal was “too and too In action held, reviewing exception plaintiff’s allegation being too indefinite court’s consid- too to eration. vague that be- cause of she was forced <&wkey;233(3) jury 9. Trial error to refer —It undergo operations for of the cervix lacerations issues of fact and allow petition held, perineum, error, in view of fact them to determine petition places in that at other been established, if no specifically described. was introduced. is error court to refer Damages Overruling <&wkey;!48 exception 3. — petition fact treat- medicines, hospital bills, claim for them or not such to determine whether- ment because not itemized not reversible held facts have been evidence has if no to sustain some of those personal injury action, overruling In defend- fact. plaintijf’s ant’s medicines, physician, bill's, 10. is on ap- —Burden alleging showing that those error to make held, itemized, were not not reversible error. thereof. appellant alleging Damages Overruling showing 4. amake thereof. t&wkey;145 that personal permanently Damages &wkey;2!6(l), 11. &wkey;!94(20) 221 —Trial living impaired plaintiff’s ability to earn held —Issue as to compensatory not error, where minutely detailed in- injury subject for personal held not juries. was on evidence, personal In overruling de- leading, suggestive, general, not confined plaintiff’s allegation fendant’s pleading, misleading, plaintiff’s injuries ability other impaired permanently double recovery. held, living error, to earn her where at injury personal action, In to- places were set gether accompanying instructions, with relative m'inutely. money, paid time, to what amount at such held, compensate would not <&wkey;352(5) Trial held not —Issue erroneous was on assuming plaintiff was elevator gen- injured, when where thereon was eral, pleadings, misleading, con- uncontradicted. fusing, and it allowed a double personal injury action bank for plaintiff’s defendant’s by negligent operation Motion for On passenger charges <&wkey;233(3) employee’s Trial in- issues as to defendant’s —Evidence moving charge jury action court’s elevator leaving, permit held referring employee’s suddenly closing relative to held, foot, to catch so as juries alleged therein. assuming plaintiff erroneous as held, when where Evidence in suffi- fact was uncontradicted. court’s cient
@=>For Key-Numbered Digests other cases see same in all KEY-NUMBER *2 4 166 injuries, cian, wit, physi- for $657 services of a and tiff had hospital services, for and for $296 $35 leged $25,000 therein. medicines. The sum of for said was claimed expenses, physical and mental suffer- (I) Objection Appeal ing, work, permanent of time and loss from evidence” “was issue because it held impairment ability to labor. to consideration. not entitled [1, result 2] While Objection, further and ground same that “the cial issues evidence,” oper because and forced two was is on the iieZd, suf- per and the same is ations for lacerations of cervix ficiently ineum, be somewhat afford specifically allegations decrib- portunity issue' different to submit ing there was reversible error form; entitled hence, appellant’s special exceptions in thereto, consideration. ground on the .were vague and indefinite. Court, Coun- Tarrant from District [3] We revers there Judge. Roy, ty ; R. L.E. ible in the' of the court over against Mary Marshall Lou Suit ruling defendant’s Judg- Bank. Farmers’ & National Mechanics’ medicines, hospital appeals. plaintiff, and defendant ment for physician, a Affirmed. itemized, al Mayer, & though Rowe Marvin H. Brown in a suit the rule would be different Worth, Brown, Fort instituted for accounts Worth, Morris, Phillips, Ry. of Fort M., & Brown for such items. &K. T. Co. v. Sim 1096; appellee. mons, App. 500, Tex. Civ. 33 S. W. Ry. Stonecypher, St. L. W. Co. 25 Tex. v. App. DUNKLIN, & Mechanics’ The Farmers’ J. [4] Nor was there error in an appealed from a Bank National other Mary Lou Marshall favor rendered in plaintiff’s petition in because of “that result of as the juries her liveli to work earn a by her while been sustained permanently impaired hood has and re operated passenger elevator alighting a duced”; for the building in the bank its the defendant allegations city of its tenants use Fort Worth proper dam show a measure of public. ages, plead and were conclusions of the peti- According mer^ er without of sufficient facts tion, 29,1925, ele- she entered on October which to base conclusions. al twenty- As. purpose vator for second ready, alleged the kind and character of the building, and when floor of the minutely to have been sustained were alighting from floor and while reached set out stopped in had after the proof .injuries would furnish suffi do, her and after order so prop cient data from which the right stepped from her had the same with erly damages. estimate measure of I. building, floor of defendant’s foot Ry. Cruseturner, G. Co. N. v. 44 Tex. charge operation employee of the' App. 181, Ry. W. C. & 98 S. G. S. F. Co. suddenly negligently and closed Scripture (Tex. v. consequence door, which left Ry. Roth, G. H. & S. A. Co. v. Tex. Civ. caught and one foot was between App. 610, Ry. 84 S. El W. 46 Paso S. W. thereby elevator, and she sides of the the caused to Barrett, App. 14, Co. Tex. Civ. 101 S. the floor and fall wall W. bodily injuries, building and to sustain the for plaintiff’s pleadings, [5, negligence 6] In recovery. sought which separate particulars three as the pe- According further cause of her and as the tition, fall, her suf- for her basis Those issues were fered a shock severe nervous submitted in the court’s arms, hips, bruises wounds both in both muscles of her back were torn and “Issue No. 1. While the’ pains as to cause mashed ness sore- the elevator of the defendant do her the evidence this case that nerve; the sciatic she has agent through employee, suddenly its moved great physical and mental up?” result of she averred No. 4. “Issue While the permanent; and she was to incur said this find from following expenses agent for treatment -or case of the de- Digests Key-Numbered cases ail see same KEY-NUMBER in
i&»For portunity to so frame the issue as was insufficient because “same is too That Lynn any possible objection, although v. Lennox him pointing tions. that those issues were embodying all of acts of defendant was plaintiff for her the that when the were on the those ulars the instructions were the while so the double the accident. vator the they weight (Tex. plaintiff’s contention relative to the absence elevator was not moved at tiff other issues further of the elevator dent ped ward or downward before er disinterested witnesses on sues tion ?” cause came from the orated fendant charge are overruled. ligence caught “Issue No. was moved The Before the [7] proximate on aU of those same, issues of fully 1 and occurred the The was. issues in the form by Isbell v. Lennox buildihg that said elevator of the evidence. therein, as in connection issues were doing out to the closed?” multifarious, objected way multifarious, (Tex. Sup.) and on the further App.) returned inquiry: any testimony 7. Did Hart and the testimony, while she was plaintiff herself, was likewise cause contradicted, negligence and of to'give closed the also being its sudden movement. who rendered assistance FARMERS’ & MECHANICS’ accident 225 W. injuries immediately Bros. Hamm v. issues, of findings found of injuries, respective the submission objected (1) *3 have plaintiffs negligence, plaintiff’s all; in that judge therewith, Assignments defendant remove The (Tex. Whether or not the could door to said exceptions the same assumed occurred, and that to show that to the submission we in favor and, door to measure, in what the same floor to issue No. 7 plaintiff’s .peti- terms it was corrob there was an indefinite they included be moved we have in answer each left ground that (2) whether proximate to remove App.) Schaff v. including on the general.” the same foot was of of without elevator unable to started partic of oth gist of Angus giving objec plain- given, equip- after jury, acci proof neg- ele 4S.w.(3d) up- op on is- not the submission of issue No. to issues of fact allow by if it is error for the facts have been has been introduced to sustain issues of fact. under the sion attempt by proof. therefor which were not ing- have found injuries, tiff from rect result tal or may worked pensate her therefor. reason of her reads could be moved the door is was so constructed that tions the court showing any of issue No. 10 because: accident in been diminished the troduced to show that the elevator in by inserting the suffer elevator could be so case will Testimony ger door was NAT. “What “Defendant “If “Do any, [9,10] Special [11] impossible reason cash, the occasion in damages, error make a fastenings service to move take plaintiff will, issue as follows: of labor is mental and physical them to as BANK v. MARSHALL you of occasion in Special leading injured if reasonably compensate plaintiff It is amount follows: into find from the if thereof, fully perceive any find The any, question? show that there open. was introduced to show that paid you to earn was made to the submission if a match time that such required objects consideration for one facts,to suffering, of any, closed. However, as familiar rule of decision that up evidence; physical pain and allow such sum of trial alleged injuries, question?” question, suggestive.” with reasonable received on the date the evidence that the money, there is no statement or reason of her therefore the showing thereof, money in cash would constructed operating or stick of error to the submis injuries alleged if down at to examine the valid court to determine condition that Evidence was also if arriving upon appellant alleg any, excepts (1) if the any, and because properly therewith, if was an absence in the future any, this trial appellant’s brief, any, The same is on evidence in this by in the future down evidence, any, in if no evidence operator endured refer may his some it for this case 10, probably the if fairly the amount injuries, if will jury may certainty, until paid not such the lock of those question and the instruc read as a di- thereto. the passen- (2) money, render by by if entire giving plain- jury, men- com- now lost you put car the by of of
made special embodied as if the instructions hearing. propositions were based sidered the you your paired. testimony plemental omissions relative to the cial jury, issue gestive, ings inal total ties cited earning capacity testimony direct result tained say overruled, tiff and Dr. ries. riving plaintiff seem usual ries, ries, objections ery. out medical any, tion, any, sate her therefor. “Xou Accordingly, all By [12] support record followed merit, that this assignments, statement as a as if brief, if and -evidence leave of amount of to be by appellant The issue any, on the occasion has sustained direct and damages in Without answer to may pointed paid statements On Motion for in is now above. One of the approved supplied brief, assigning were too in view of propositions appearing tending Nos. of the general, also take appellant’s further insists in substantial supplemental by any if length, support them, Bean, her contention believe amount also now court, No. 10 objections urged received of facts any, character of in which effect insisted that present. in cash would evidence, leading question assignments method it allows error to indefinite. we deem it suits that into grounds show that has original such sum into a recital of the future had been attending physician, case, damages, doctors, question, opinion presented time consideration that evidence shown briefs with No. 11.” if appellant that there was and we have con- submitted to the been accord the same was any, is affirmed. occasion any, a double misleading has thereto fairly compen- *4 issue therewith incurred of error are brief. which those See authori- form of sufficient to so found pointed filed a in its if making standpoint with the had been money, if any, is with- original has sus- plead- recov- ques- orig- sup- sug- out im- ar- no - to the trial back plaints perhaps lacking in arm, whether or not male ties cited fect .that conclusions opinion.- in her No. normal menstruation. cles in the were sufficient to ries, injuries only arated.” There submit that testimony tained suffered above, separated, tiff, ner as to back, support the aments causing scribing alleged dertake to set them shown in and as a Motion We have Lennox abound that some “lacerated,” instead of left arm was again or of a organs,” Sup.) in our and thus afford hip, great physical suffering, insists that there was no in her left to have been sustained answering specific proof the “bones abnormal in our produce basis of “torn” or back, or a considered, issue of measure of reached thereon in issue in a different carefully statement of as the evidence tended to original opinion tearing sufficiently rehearing say nor the repetition, of the bones therein it is not confining of her original opinion. of all of which as a result of some hip bruised, that she sustained menstruation shock of that her out in we do not believe “crushed tearing were torn were considered derangement reviewed of a laceration general way, proposition, injuries produced ab- and we plaintiff’s hips, they is overruled. crushing And sustained those out the and we shall not un- minor the muscles facts, hip full. time hip nervous embodied com- although there in such a man- to become other authori adhere to the to determine and that plaintiff sus- form. the and find that details. testimony therefrom, ligaments to the plaintiff’s discussed becoming bruised,” probable left arm soreness of those original deem system, prove, trial, issue mus- arm, “lig- sep- Ap- out Id. ef- fe-