*1 evidence, the collision under the think, with defendant’s truck. We might prejudicial trap situation be referred to as death impropriety. Baking We [Stratton presented. here palpable properties no see abuse the situation fail Packing (2d) 630, We (Mo.), Co. [Bobso accordingly to find reversible error of record and /./concurs; Trimble, /.,P. Bland, affirmed. absent. Randol, Fred Error, Hellums,
Joe C. (2d) 500. in Error. 40 S. W. Appeals. 1931. June Court Raymond defendant error. Kyle Waller A. Marry G. M. in error. M. Griffith BOYER, damages. C. Action for The case is here on writ of parties error and as a matter of will convenience be referred *2 designation to their below as and defendant. Plaintiff personal on account of and property sued recover alleged negligence occasioned his automobile of the driver against plaintiff’s truck driven of defendant’s truck. The was car .thoroughfares in public City. in of two Kansas while the intersection damaged. jury- his The Plaintiff was and ear a awarded plaintiff. for and was entered The $1667, verdict so points in the brief the fol- assignment of errors and the treated are against evidence, lowing: (1) is The verdict against (2) The court erred the ad- evidence, the-law. and Damages (3) assessed excessive. improper evidence. are mission of (5) Plaintiff was (4) sustained. have been The demurrer should (6) of counsel contributory negligence. Misconduct guilty of leading questions. asking question pleading petition charges The is no in the case.
There negligent in agent of defendant was the truck that the he drove keep proper stop, or and high speed; failed to lookout at a rate contrary negligently into said street intersection drove that he speed ordinances of signals in violation of the traffic traffic and directly collision. The answer caused the City, Kansas all of negligence contributory in that general plea a a denial and was safety violated ordinances his own plaintiff failed to look out for street intersection driving automobile his signals. to traffic contrary The evidence contained in record favorable following
shows the state of facts: Southwest extends Boulevard diagonally from northeast to southwest. Broadway extends north south and Boulevard; intersects they Southwest public are both thoroughfares; Broadway sixty feet wide and Southwest Boule- considerably vard wider. At this intersection there were maintained signals mechanical showing traffic red, amber, colors of green. Red green indicated that traffic stop, must indicated the way traffic; for the amber color shown was brief in- a change terval between the other colors and impending indicated an green from red to If the reverse. traffic had entered the intersec- green signal changed tion before the amber the traffic was proceed July across, stop. and other traffic On northeastwardly daytime, plaintiff driving was on Southwest Boule- light approaching Broadway. signal green, in- The vard dicating pro- proceed. his He entered the intersection and beyond the his car to the north center thereof turned ceeded intending proceed Broadway. in that direction on While he was signal lights changed green Broadway the intersection the for Southwest
and red At this Boulevard. time defendant’s truck fifty more feet-or east of the intersection on Southwest Boule- vard-approaching thirty at a rate miles hour. per- It continued slackening speed against entered intersection signal. escape, red Plaintiff endeavored to but the struck truck forty middle, automobile near the shoved it a' distance of feet across Broadway, causing entering it to collide with another automobile north, from the and then the intersection auto- shoved against large pole a steel mobile over to the curb and on the north- injuries corner of intersection. Plaintiff’s such west placed from car and the terrace. While assisted his the-truck lying defendant’s looked down his there driver ’ “ ’ front, stay y.ou to from in trucks. I ’ll face and said: learn away on down the street at the truck and drove driver then backed him, compelled stop, him to pace. Police overtook rapid officers *3 him accident, placed under and him the of the scene returned " arrest. Testimony in behalf of defendant tended to show that his truck - way plaintiff driver the of and that suddenly, and in signal, of violation the drove his automobile in front of the truck. subject conflicting. On this was testimony the evidence in The ref- plaintiff’s erence ear "to the will be stated the of the in course
OPINION. 1, together 5 may Points and be considered inasmuch as suf the. contributory ficiency negligence plaintiff are evidence necessarily ruling in a consideration of the the de included on. plaintiff In the favorable to view of evidence the demurrer murrer. jury properly competent It was for the to determine overruled. fact testimony issues of the determine the and. support the conflicting was substantial evidence evidence. There appeal heed of defendant jury we the conclusion the cannot hold favor. do not the in his preponderates the evidence We that perform cannot that weigh the evidence with which scales 1067, 1068; 298 S. Lazerine, in case. a daw [Renfro function W. Sup.), Mining (Mo. & Co. v. Willis Coal & Coal Co. Missouri Illinois contributory negligence as a guilty not matter evidence length portions of the refers at law. the in- plaintiff drove fact that established claims managed his car improperly contrary signals to tersection knew that truck when road in the placed it was so that of. evidence of such Some truck. doing he would.be struck so negligent, but contributorily show that tend to would - that not all of tbe in evidence the case.' As heretofore stated, the in plaintiff’s evidence favor is to the effect that he was)proceeding properly lawfully and that defendant’s entered itu driver tersection in violation of signal, and at an speed,, excessive plaintiff’s struck car at time right-to-assume when had a the truck stop driver would entering before the -intersection. to; argument force of the tends strongly more convict-.plaintiff of an error of management of his- car rather than negligence convict him of entering the manner of passing through the street intersection. From the view- of the evidence plaintiff- favorable he had way. lawfully He was the; duty the street and it was agent stop defendant’s truck entering before the intersection. When it stop did not plaintiff -was emergency. confronted with an His actions thereafter be should judged unexpected in view of the in which situation placed. he was emergency quite naturally What he did after justly arose and' ¡de is-hot measured the same standard promoted by as conduct following liberation time reflection. It jury was for the say whether at time ordinarily conduct of an prudent or, person words, in other whether he -was-in the exercise e surroundings. Beeler, due care view his [Bullmor May (2d) 164; Mayne Stern Furniture (2d) 21 argument alleged In the course reference is made to errors giving assignment and refusal of instructions. There is.no subject upon the and no thereto in'the reference motion .new point trial and that will not be reviewed. . .. ...... *4 Complaint part is madé of -a of the of N. testimony Dr. -and the reference, attorney inquiry adopted by plaintiff’s method in' .to the character the service which the doctor ren accustomed .to attorney sought Defendant’s credibility der. to lessen the or rdid; by inquiring the doctor’s evidence whether not the docto testify damage “quite suits, testify “quite often” in a bit” in damage attorney plaintiff.- inquiry, suits for for To the meet this - doc-, by plaintiff’s proposed counsel to show that the'nature of the. tor’s work he would be called as a witness both defendants the doctor plaintiffs. permitted inquiry The court testified prominent he did work for a number of that that establishments:and Kansas represented he and his associates -six industries in -hundred.
City testify work, frequently; in industrial called to and that plaintiff, for. defend both for defendant for and more often prejudicial, error .suffered ant. Under the circumstances we see no inquiry it was a to be invited defendant. The matter discretion, judge. directed and controlled the sound trial (Mo. 205 Sup.), v. Steiert S. W. [Daudt
1096 it permit plaintiff testify
It is next insisted that was error automobile, qualify of his and that he to the valne did not as an ex subject. necessary qualify not pert plaintiff on the It was as testify expert in order to value of his owner of an ear. The qualification may its testify an automobile further as to rea weight such value, jury sonable determine the value of Indemnity 297 testiinony. Company America, [Finn 176; Stanton, 296 State ex rel. injuries plaintiff’s slight further contends that were testimony
and that the medical of defendant’s witnesses shows that physical in normal back, he is condition. Plaintiff was shoulders, and side and sustained various bruises. was unable He get hospital it out car. He was removed from to the and then days, trial, his in bed and at home where ten the time of heavy attending May 19, any 1930, was to do work. unable physician multiple testified that bruises and contusions separation about and back and a of the muscles shoulder ribs; that of the intercostal muscles between the sixth and eleventh con- were torn and that had bruises and muscles loose region; dis- the back in the lumbosacral there was tusions about coloration, swelling, that he sacro- hemorrhage; had sustained a region sprain spasm illiac and had of the fifth lumbar muscle in- vertebra; some loose and there was the muscles torn region is sacro-illiac hips; the side to rotate the ability injuries patient’s per- left, and that the are- tipped lower than four medical treatment three manent. received weight. evi- twenty-two pounds There was also lost months and equal would automobile plaintiff’s dence excessive, is not the verdict $400. amount of Under the evidence court and should the trial approval of moderate. It met the but stand. prejudicial no the conduct of
Finally, we see error particular asking leading questions. The matter comí counsel us, “pages we are plained of not but referred indicated duty alleged leading questions. It is the for the inclusive” prejudicial show effect. error and to its appellant to indicate anything to find of the record we fail However, inspection from our discretion, or of an abuse to convict the trial court prejudicial to defendant. procedure any rules of violation 472, 489, Light 299 Mo. [Godfrey Power & *5 233; Bucher, Jennemann affecting materially any error has failed to show Com- affirmed. The judgment should be merits of the case Campbell, C., concurs. so recommends.' missioner foregoing opinion C., PER of Boyer, adopted CURIAM:—The is All opinion concur, of the court. The is affirmed. as Trimble, except J., P. absent. Respondent.* R. Bear, Appellant, Johnson,
Richard (2d)W. 481. May 4, Appeals. 1931. Court Lyons Rogers appellant. & Whitson Ristine respondent. & Ihe Shelton for Blachtvell Sherman and peti- appears from injury. As BOYER, personal C. Action His hand employ defendant. tion, was a farm hand being caught ensilage cutter working while an about forming a revolving machinery, cogs apron chain of with it. operated in part being connection of the cutter' and described, 1928, the extent of August 6, occurred ‘ ‘ alleges: apron is so constructed petition revolving That said open, cog part lower thereof on the chain and wheels being used unguarded dangerous;” that the cutter exposed, ensilage farm cut fodder on his defendant