272 Mo. 19 | Mo. | 1917
This is a suit upon a policy of accident insurance to recover the sum of ten thousand dollars for the loss of the left hand above the wrist. The policy provided an indemnity of $10,000 for loss of life and, among other things, provided for paying a like amount for loss of one hand by severance at or above the wrist if the injury be sustained “while a passenger in or on any regular passenger conveyance provided by a common carrier (including the platform, steps or running board of railway or street railway ears.” The policy was dated August 1, 1911, and was for a period of three months from its date. In the schedule of warranties contained in the policy it is stated that the beneficiary named in the policy, Mamie Lamport, is the wife of the insured; that the insured had no other accident -or health insurance except a five-thousand-dollar policy
Trial was had. before the circuit court of Jackson County, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the. plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant duly perfected an appeal.
The accident occurred about ten o’clock p. m., August 10, 1911, at the street-car stop at the entrance to Fairmount Park, near Kansas City, Missouri. A considerable crowd of people who had been patronizing the park were waiting for a street car. Plaintiff was in this crowd. The number in the crowd was estimated, by the .different witnesses, at from twenty to two or three hundred people. As the street ear was about to stop for the purpose of receiving passengers from this crowd, plaintiff jumped on to the front step thereof and took hold of the hand-hold. The car then moved about twenty feet farther, with him in this position, when he fell from the step; and while the car was moving slowly it ran over his left hand necessitating the amputation thereof.
"Witnesses produced by plaintiff narrated the occurrence as follows:
Louise Ruyssers testified that she and her three sisters were in the crowd waiting for the car and that they were standing near the track as the front end of the car passed them and that something ‘ ‘ gave her sister such a knock that she was forced to step back in order to gain her balance.” The witness then heard someone scream that a man was hurt. She then turned and saw .the plaintiff on the ground, on his back, lying parallel with the car, with his head toward the front end of the car. The plaintiff was groaning.
Sophie Ruyssers corroborated the above testimony of her sister and said that it must have been the man on the car that brushed against her sister. They next noticed the man lying on the ground with his hand, crushed.
Dr. Richard Callaghan, the local surgeon for one of the railroad lines entering Kansas City, testified that he saw the plaintiff get on the front end of the car, about eight feet ahead of where the witness was standing. The witness had himself intended to get on the step, but the plaintiff got on ahead of him, and the witness then turned his attention to the rear end of the car. The witness was not looking at plaintiff when the accident occurred, but immediately went to plaintiff’s assistance and found him lying unconscious on the ground with his left hand crushed. The witness also found a bruised place on the rear portion of the top of plaintiff’s head. This witness testified that passengers were let in at both ends of the car, on that night, at that place. That when the accident occurred the car was moving slowly, preparing to-stop. The witness further testified that plaintiff was suffering from concussion of the brain and that the concussion of the brain rendered plaintiff unconscious; that, plaintiff “came to” in about thirty minutes, but did not become rational and fully regain consciousness until the next morning; that the injury to the hand could not have caused the unconsciousness, but that it could have been caused from the bruise on the head. This witness accompanied plaintiff to the hospital and there aided in amputating the hand. The plaintiff did 'not sufficiently regain his consciousness to be able to help determine about the amputation of his hand, but the physician in charge decided that it was the necessary thing to do, and it was accordingly done.
Oscar H. Stevens testified that it was crowded around the car; that there was a “bunch” on the front end; that plaintiff was knocked or brushed off and fell and was in under the car “and it looked like he was going to get his head and everything cut off, ” and the witness grabbed plaintiff by his feet and pulled him out
Sam Tranin- testified: “ There was quite a mob of people down there waiting for the ear. Well, the car came around, kind of swept away around the curve, and I could see — well, just when it was probably about ten feet away from me, I could see a man holding on to the vestibule, to the rods of the car — of course, I couldn’t see whether he was standing on the steps or not, because I didn’t see below, I just looked on top of the car, I could see that, I could see him fall loose from there. . . . Then Mr. Stevens started to holler, ‘ That man, ’ he says, ‘just fell off of the car and got cut up,’ and then Mr. Stevens ran up to pull him out. There was such a mob right around there I couldn’t see what he done with him at all.”
Witnesses for the defendant narrated the occurrence as follows:
Bessie Rosenthal testified: “I saw the man as the car was turning the loop; I saw a man hop on the car, and he held there, and when it turned the loop and got towards me, he went and let go, and he fell off, fell kind of on his side, on his back, and then he rolled over, and threw one hand on the track, and hit my slipper with' the other hand. He fell on his back.” This witness further testified that plaintiff was not unconscious before his hand was crushed, but became so afterwards. She gave as a reason for this conclusion that his eyes were open
Mrs. H. Ankerson testified as follows: “This man jumped or caught hold of that bar of the .car — that handlebar there — and it drug him along; he seemed to slip —I don’t know whether he slipped or not, I can’t say that, but it drug him along and just as he got in front of us he fell, and he fell over and he rolled back again, and just then, why, he threw out his hands, and I says, ‘Don’t throw your hand under the car’; he threw it right under the car then.”
Louis Minturn testified that he saw the man jump for the steps as the car came along and saw him take hold of the handholds; then he saw the plaintiff squat down and let go of the handhold and fall forward on his back. The witness then saw plaintiff roll over and place his hand on the rail under the front trucks and then roll back on his back; that the car ran five or ten feet and then stopped.
Charles Guth, companion of the witness Minturn, testified as follows: “I noticed a man jump on the front step and grab the one handhold, and he let loose — well, he was on there just long enough to let loose, and fell off kind of back down on his back, and forward, and he rolled over and placed his hand under the wheel of the car just about the time the ear was ready to stop.” This witness saw the wheel, run over plaintiff’s hand and stated that after this occurred plaintiff “rolled over and threw his left hand in the air, the mangled hand; threw it in the air, on his back. The car was traveling about three or four miles an hour.” On cross-examination the witness testified that plaintiff’s shoulders hit the ground first; that the plaintiff “kind of squatted and fell back on his shoulders” and that the injured man was unconscious after the accident.
The testimony on behalf of defendant took a wide range and much immaterial.testimony was introduced without any objection on the part of plaintiff. The plaintiff did not take the witness stand in person, but the
The’plaintiff did not regain consciousness until the next morning and stated that he had no idea as to how he lost his hand and that his hand was amputated before he recovered consciousness.
The plaintiff further testified that- creditors were not pressing him for money at the time he was injured and that his business was prosperous; that the assets of the Lamport Eoofing Company were about nine thousand dollars and that the firm owed a bank about one thousand dollars at that time.
At that time plaintiff owed a Mr. LaPoree about one thousand dollars as balance on a rooming house which he had purchased and owed about forty dollars on a grocery bill; that he owned nine thousand dollars of the $15,000 capital stock of the roofing company and that he had two or three hundred dollars on deposit at the Trust Company at the time he was hurt.
He testified that he had collected the $1250 on the policy he purchased at the Santa Fe Ticket office.
It further appears from the evidence that after this accident, and on February 13, 1912, plaintiff deposited the policy here in suit with the Commerce Trust Company of Kansas City to secure an indebtedness of $9000 which he then owed the bank and which he had borrowed since the accident. It appears from the evidence that the trust company was made party plaintiff to this ac
There was evidence tending to show that, at the time of this accident, plaintiff was the owner of a rooming house called the New Era; that he did not conduct it personally, but employed different women ‘to manage the same. Some of the witnesses testified that the house was conducted along moral lines, but others said it was not. One witness said that street walkers were permitted to enter therein, with the knowledge and acquiescence of plaintiff. There was also evidence tending to show that no profits were being realized by plaintiff from this rooming house at the time of the accident. Plaintiff originally gave $1500 for the same, and was carrying about $3150 insurance on the furniture therein.
The agent of the defendant company corroborated in a way the testimony of plaintiff about the purchase of the accident insurance policies; but stated that plaintiff brought the subject up, on July 30, 1911, and that he seized the opportunity and persuaded the plaintiff to take the additional policy for ten thousand dollars and that he delivered the policy to plaintiff on August 7th, and plaintiff asked the witness if he had to keep the policy and that the agent told plaintiff that he had his money and that plaintiff had to keep the policy. This witness further testified that plaintiff never asked him to cancel the policy.
The agent for the Aetna Company testified that the plaintiff came to him inquiring about insurance and that he did not go to plaintiff and solicit the business by knocking on defendant company. He did admit, however, ‘that he explained the advantages of the Aetna policy over the policy of the defendant company, and that plaintiff told him about his having fifteen thousand dollars of insurance in the defendant company, and said that he would refuse to take the ten-thousand-dollar policy in the defendant company when it was delivered.
The general agent of the defendant company in Kansas City testified that a few days before the accident plaintiff called at the office and asked him to explain the
A signed statement of the Lamport Roofing Company, dated June 13, 1911, and supplied by plaintiff to the Trust Company, for the purpose of securing credit for the company, showed total liabilities $2535 and total assets, $10,900.
There was also evidence tending to show that plaintiff drew fifteen dollars a week from the roofing company. This amount was drawn by each of the three general stockholders, but it appears that when any one of the three wanted more money that he drew it from the company and each of the others would draw a like amount. The evidence further tended to show that any additional profits made by the company were left in the treasury of the company and put into the company’s business.
A short time prior to the accident the people near the factory of the Lamport Roofing Company complained of the smoke and fumes coming therefrom and had threatened to have the same abated as a nuisance, and it appears that after the accident, and on August 30, 1911, the plaintiff was fined fifty dollars in police court because of the smoke nuisance, and the plant was closed. Afterwards plaintiff made arrangements to move the plant to Kansas City, Kansas, and executed a contract to purchase a piece of land over there for about $6,000 and paid five hundred dollar down on same, but had never paid any further sums up until the time of the trial. Plaintiff moved his plant over to Kansas City, Kansas, and bought considerable new machinery, but it appears that at the time of the trial the plant was not being operated.
The evidence also shows that a few years before this accident plaintiff spent sometime in South Africa, trading with the natives, and that he had lived in several different places, but finally came back to Kansas City; that he had a wife living at Chicago at'the time of the
The evidence further tended to show that prior to the accident the gross business of the roofing company amounted to $600 or $800 per month, but the amount of profits is not shown.
In rebuttal the book-keeper for the Lamport Roofing-Company testified that she heard plaintiff tell the agent of the defendant company that he wanted to cancel the ten-thousand-dollar policy, but that the agent refused to cancel it; this occurred in the office of the roofing company, prior to the accident.
Such further facts as may be necessary to an understanding of the issues will be stated in the opinion.
I. Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling its demurrer to the evidence offered at the close of the evidence.
“13. In the policy sued on, the plaintiff Lamport warranted that one Mamie Lamport was his wife. The evidence shows that this warranty was untrue; that Mamie Lamport never was the wife of plaintiff Lamport. Your verdict will therefore be in favor of the defendant.
“14. In the policy sued on, the plaintiff Lamport warranted that his habits of life were correct.- The evidence conclusively shows that this warranty was false, and your verdict will be in favor of the defendant.
“15. In the policy .sued on, the plaintiff Lamport warranted that his-income per week exceeded the gross amount of weekly indemnity under all policies carried by him. This warranty was false, and your verdict will be in favor of the defendant.
“16. In the policy sued on, the plaintiff Lamport warranted that he had no accident insurance issued by stock companies, except a certain p.olicy issued by. the defendant. This warranty was false and untrue, and your verdict will be in favor of the defendant. ’ ’
Instruction 13 above is based upon-the alleged warranty in the policy that the beneficiary named therein was the wife of the insured. The evidence, we think, unmistakably shows that the beneficiary was not the wife of the insured. However, since the very purpose of
It has been held that a policy of this character, at least with reference to those portions providing indemnity for loss of life, were policies of life insurance, within the meaning of the suicide statute of this State. [Logan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 146 Mo. 114.]
By like reasoning such a policy or at least so much thereof as relates to indemnity for loss of life, would likewise be a “policy of insurance on life” within the scope of section 6937, Revised Statutes 1909, which provides that:
“No misrepresentation made in obtaining or securing a policy of insurance on the life or lives of any person or persons, citizens of this State, shall be deemed material, or render the policy void, unless the matter misrepresented shall have actually contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy is to become due and payable, and whether it so contributed in any case shall be a question for the jury.”
Under the provision of the above section the court would not be justified in giving the peremptory instruction to find for the defendant even though the representation or warranty as to the beneficiary were false, this because the jury would still have the right to say whether such misrepresentation actually contributed to the loss.
Concerning instructions 14, 15 and 16 above, it is sufficient to say that the evidence upon the issue of false warranties therein mentioned was conflicting and it cannot be said that either of the other warranties were false as a matter of law. That point alone would justify the court in refusing to give the instructions as asked. And, under such a condition, it becomes unnecessary to a determination of this case to decide whether or not" the war
IV. We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to give its instruction number 21.
Whether such an instruction would ever be proper, we have very serious doubts, but as to that we need not now determine, because such an instruction would certainly be improper in the present suit where plaintiff’s testimony, in deposition form, covering about 140 pages of this record, was introduced in evidence by the defendant and considered by the jury. This deposition took a wide range and plaintiff gave testimony, not only upon every point that might possibly relate to the issues, but also upon matters clearly outside the issues. He explained in that deposition that he became unconscious
We, therefore, rule that the court did not err in refusing this instruction.
V. It is. contended that the court erred in excluding the following evidence:
(1) A portion of the answer of plaintiff’s wife filed in a divorce proceeding in Chicago in 1908 wherein she charged plaintiff with sexual perversion.
(2) Letters written by plaintiff to his wife in 1903, 4905 and 1906.
(3) The record of the municipal court of Chicago showing that on April 8, 1908, the plaintiff was found guilty of wife abandonment and, by said court, was ordered to pay to his wife the sum of $250 and that the plaintiff stand committed until the above sum is so paid. The record further shows that the plaintiff was, by said court, discharged on April 22, 1908.
(4) The records of the district court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, showing that a criminal action was pending therein in which plaintiff stood charged with the crime of perjury in making a false affidavit in connection with a divorce proceeding instituted by plaintiff in said court on the 14th of November, 1912.
These propositions appear to he so plain as to require no citation of authority.
The present condition of the bill of exceptions does not justify a discussion of this point. The voir dire examination of the witness is not preserved in the bill of exceptions. Upon a hearing had upon the motion for a new trial the evidence is in conflict as to what questions were asked the juror upon his voir dire examination. According to the juror’s own sworn testimony, he made true answers to questions propounded him upon his examination. The trial court who passed upon this question was present when the voir dire examination was had, and ruled against appellant’s contention on the point now urged. Since the condition of the present record leaves in doubt just what occurred upon the voir dire examination, we are unable to determine whether or not the juror concealed any matter which he should have disclosed.
The point is therefore disallowed.'
The judgment is affirmed.