*1 account, meager acter of the that, upon we conclude further general facts known case, to the bank as shown in evidence in thereby charged cannot be said that the defendant bank was with the duty inquire as to such a part claim as that of the the bank balance of the depositor Company. John P. Tillhof busy city
If a bank general knowledge with such limited of a de- positor’s inquiry put upon claimed, business were so its facilities which, as a depository, through conduit or channel businessmen and carry interchanges, this, case, concerns on their usual financial inas safely could not maintained, be and such could seldom hazard bank extending depositor security risk of credit to a of his bank A safely account therein. bank in most such cases not credit money bank, the account of borrower borrowed from the where commingled depositor’s funds, lest, by it would be with other reason general knowledge of the bank’s depositor’s of the nature of the busi- ness, money loaned would absorbed be claim of some account, one to the whole unknown to bank. trust Bank- ing public ordinary business convenience connection there- greatly hampered impeded. with would be considerations, course, pertinent
Such would be under suf- showing knowledge, ficient facts the bank’s actual implied, or a duty inquire. facts, Absent such such a rule would be so unreason- impracticable suggest fallacy. able and as to its own points appellants made disposed The other are of in the ' foregoing opinion. « stated, we believe For the reasons of the trial court It and should be affirmed. is so All was correct ordered. concur. City Company. D. Franklin, Kansas
Claude Public Service (2d) 186 S. W. 546. Appeals. March Court of 1945. *2 Carr, L. Watson, Ess, Groner, Whittaker, Charles Barnett & Carl Enggas and Douglas Stripp E. appellant. for respondent. Qoessy, N. W. for Louis J. Kachelhofer injuries personal damages based a suit SPERRY, C. This in which the truck when Franklin, plaintiff, D. received Claude *3 operated and car owned by a street was struck he was seated Trial to defendant. City Public Service in the favor of in in a verdict and resulted appeals. of Defendant $7500. is not case amake submissible evidence to sufficiency of the The record only facts of such we will state challenged. Therefore questions of disposition understanding and necessary to an are appeal. presented He accident. time of the years at the 64 old Plaintiff was about salesman, bakery years, for about regularly employed, had been being management change of until 1937 when about steadily for Thereafter, he worked employment. from such released tasks, for checker, and at other a time half about one and one employment full work, he had no time Following this his union. occasionally as a employed union, was time for the part but worked prior jobs. About a week at other odd salesman, and worked baker’s Bakery driver and as a employed Crowe the accident he was salesman. February 1942, M., 2, A. about 6 o’clock
The collision occurred City, Main, in Kansas when a 37th and 39th on South between Streets seated, in which he was became stalled truck, operated plaintiff and car tracks and was struck defendant’s street defendant’s street on plaintiff was rendered car. As a result of the collision unconscious period of about 24 to 48 remained in that condition for hours. and Mary’s Hospital the truck to St. he He was removed from where 11, 1942. He suffered a concussion of the remained until February dollar, spot, a bruised about the size of a on his left brain and hospital records tended to that he suffered con- temple. neck, in brain, complained pain of back and had cussion of the bruises injury neck, temple, possible complained of over left soreness in of scapular very shaky, complained chest and region, weak aud and in occipital distress region.
Dr. Bourke, testified employer, who treated him behalf of the plaintiff’s the-effect that a of the brain means concussion brain that he injured, know; did not great how or little he accident; that, treated him and period for a after the several weeks five complained pain weeks after in the accident, plaintiff still back of his neck and He released* for work five shoulders. weeks after symptoms the accident. He found no of a stroke apoplexy. testimony, regarding
Plaintiff’s a result of colli- his condition as sion, thereafter, and was to the effect that after went home from he the hospital stayed he days; that he around house for several attended police court March; about the middle of that for about two or three after months the accident he suffered from weakness in the legs pain head; up his condition cleared after about two or months, fine, good three thereafter he felt health summer, November, 1942; fine all until in felt that he drove his' ear days two or three a week from about two months after his return hospital, from 29, 1942; until November that he drove the car on a day trip three in September, 1942; September worked in he Company good Wonder Bread physical and was in condition at that time; immediately that he worked for the three weeks prior to 1942, November 29, putting up windows, storm and that he had pains time; aches or at that about two weeks to Nov- 29, 1942, ember lips began twitch, speech his thickened, his he unsteady became and- legs; nervous as to hands and and that he paralytic 29, suffered a stroke on November from which he *4 helpless which, became trial, for a time and from at the time of right leg he was still wholly unable to use his and arm and was incapacitated for labor. 12, 1941,
Plaintiff also testified that on October he fell some ten building, alighting twelve feet from a on his chest and face. He broke three ribs. There was evidence to the effect that his nose days bled from the in hospital fall. He was four injuries because of so received. There was also evidence to the effect that two high pressure to the collision he suffered from blood and had received treatment therefor. testimony Lee,
Plaintiff offered the of Dr. who attended him after he suffered the stroke. Dr. Lee stated that opinion, it was his as a physician, upon examination, based his observation and treatment plaintiff, blocking that the stroke was either due to á of the arteries leading portion brain, hemorrhage a of the or to a under the brain covering producing pressure on the brain. He found symptoms no hemorrhage and did think of a cerebral that had suffered hemorrhage. such a that it was Dr. Lee stated question, hypothetical to a In answer might have (such as injury have a head
possible for one covering, and the brain collision) causing blood from the a then have stroke year and long as a for as duties one’s continue stated He also incapacitated. paralyzed become therefrom received by injury an similarly caused might be a stroke that likely injury thereto; an that such years prior five four or bleeding collision; that a as from fall twelve feet from a be caused injury; head of a fall, is evidence a nose, caused from susceptible much more is high pressure blood suffering from one cause, than other from trauma or blood, either clotting of the to a person a that the older suffering high pressure; blood from one not higher the stroke; that the there is of may more be, the likelihood stroke; that tendency to suffer greater is the is the pressure blood usually from is injury and a stroke a traumatic between the interval injury and between an if the interval days weeks; and that six to six that the year evidence that is some ten months to a stroke is from injury. caused stroke was not yes answer or no to that he could not
Dr. Bourke stated plaintiff’s doctor, stroke not, whether or receiyed in injuries the collision. caused Mary’s plaintiff at effect he saw St. Nigro Dr. testified to the yet did not unconscious. He Hospital after the while he was accident questions testimony little value on the him and his is of examine appeal. raised on this that there no medical was to the effect
Defendant’s evidence injuries received causal connection between by him some ten months thereafter. collision and the stroke suffered designated E, D effect instructions Defendant offered jury arriving at of which was tell the that in its verdict should relating The not take into consideration the evidence to the stroke. given give such instructions. the instructions court refused to Under disabling to take into consideration was not forbidden arriving of the stroke at the of its verdict. effects give E, is instructions, refusal of the court to either of said D and assigned as error. Defendant contends that there substantial tending plaintiff’s injuries, evidence suffered in the collision, him; caused or contributed to the stroke suffered disability evidence discloses that his at the time of the trial seems, large measure, from the stroke. study
Upon careful and examination of the record the writer is *5 opinion point , the that the is well taken. by by or not the stroke was caused Whether the concussion received question, is a answer, the collision medical and in the its record, only this to be learned state of from those learned in medical layman knowledge practice. “No any and could know or have reason 156 v. from it.”
able for an that it did result basis inference [Kimmie (2d), 596, 66 S. W. Louis, Terminal R. R. 334 Ass’n. of St. Mo. 561, l. c. 564.] Bourke, plaintiff, Dr.
One of tbe medical who testified for witnesses flatly question of whether any refused to at all on the opinion state by was, or the concussion been, not the stroke could have or caused be question not received in the stated that could collision. He yes answered either or no. in- have a head “perfectly possible
Dr. Lee testified that it to one’s covering with blood continue all of under the brain and year incapacitated duties for as much paralyzed as'a still be that, opinion, injury.” as the of the He did result not state by the covering caused stroke from blood the brain collision. He further testified to the effect that stroke could likely (as roof) been fall four or five have caused from a .testimony stroke, further the collision. His fog surrounding this failed connection to clear the of doubt really but, answer to of what caused the stroke contrary, tended to increase it. testimony that positive
Defendant’s medical and to the effect no there was causal between the and the connection concussion stroke. Hense, plaintiff not aided s-case ivas defendant’s evidence on point. prove, evidence, burden was on substantial collision, the stroke was caused else could not he recover s resulting City
disablement therefrom. v. Kansa Public [Berry (2d) 98, Service 108 W. l. c. S. He offered the 107.] testimony of prove two 'medical witnesses in an con effort to causal opinion ques nection. Dr. Bourke refused venture an on the stated, obliquely, caused; tion. Lee have Dr. been it so but his to the effect it “could” have been is “no more than an possible, assurance” such result was and was not sub tending was, stantial evidence that the in fact, stroke caused by' [Berry collision. v. Public Service Company, 658, (2d) 98, 107, 341 Mo. S. W. supra.] Armour, 677, In 345 Mo. (2d) 312, Hunt S. W. l. c. “ that, It in' was said: is now settled matter where the evidence does laymen all other .causes and in which exclude no could know or any reasonable basis for an cause, opinions have inference as to a certain or might, could, doctors that occurrence condition or would certain produce result is more an than assurance that such scientifically possible, result was does not alone constitute sub that such stantial evidence occurrence condition did cause it.” urges because the verdict Defendant reversal were was no Since there substantial excessive. evidence of causal con- and the the collision stroke an nection between such instrument *6 ' Tt given. been must be have requested defendant should disability resulting stroke, and the took assumed assessing damages; and since such therefrom, into consideration damaged allowed, considerably augmented the disability must have Kansas City [Barry an order of remittitur. there is no basis for Public Service supra.] damages, except such as effects we find no error
Since remanded for a new reversed and the cause judgment should be expressed, the views herein issue of trial, in accordance with only. Missouri, 1943, page 395, damages Section the amount of [Laws Grocery Company, 116 Borgstede v. & S. W. (c) Wetterau Sons (2d) 179.]
Boyer, G., concurs. foregoing opinion Sperry, C.,
PER adopted CURIAM:'—The is of the court. The reversed the cause damages remanded for new trial on the the amount of only. All concur. Assignee George
Thomas C. L. Vining, For Himself For Vining, (2d) v. James Edward W. Probst. 186 S. 611. Appeals. Court of March 1945.