Opinion
No. 21404.
November 20, 1950.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, JACKSON COUNTY, JOE W. McQUEEN, J.
Albert Thomson, Johnson, Davis, Thomson, and Van Dyke Fairchild, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
James Patrick Quinn, Alex D. Peebles, and Quinn Peebles, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the respondent, plaintiff below, in a collision between an automobile in which the plaintiff was an occupant and an automobile driven at the time by the defendant. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $7500. Defendant's motion for new trial being overruled, he has taken this appeal.
The sole point made on appeal is that the verdict was excessive. According to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff he was at the time of the trial nineteen years of age. He had been participating in a basket ball game on the evening of February 27, 1948, and was being taken to his home by a friend, Peter F. Roberts, Jr., in the latter's car. Mr. Roberts, his wife, their small child and the plaintiff were all seated in the same seat of the respondent's car, being driven at the time by Mr. Roberts. When the car, traveling eastward on 6th Street in Kansas City, Missouri, at the rate of 15 or 20 miles an hour, had reached and entered into the intersection of that street with Locust Street, the defendant reached the intersection from the east and turned his car to make a left turn, cutting the corner of the intersection and running head on into the respondent's car, demolishing both cars and causing the permanent injuries to the plaintiff complained of. The petition did not pray for medical expenses or loss of wages.
In considering the claim of excessiveness of the verdict, we are required to consider the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff on that point and to disregard that which is conflicting. Henderson v. Dolas, Mo.Sup., 217 S.W.2d 554, 557. The defendant here claims that the evidence of serious or permanent injuries to the plaintiff is inconsistent with the physical facts; that no medical bills or loss of wages were claimed; that the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff is consistent with the theory that the injuries to the head and knee and other injuries were minor; that the verdict is completely out of line with recent verdicts. Defendant makes a separate and further point that "The testimony and circumstances of the parties explain this unreasonable verdict." This last point is too general to require our consideration. Supreme Court Rule 1.08; Crampton v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 125, 201 S.W.2d 336, 172 A.L.R. 344.
The evidence most favorable to the plaintiff on the matter of his injuries tended to show that plaintiff at some period in his childhood had polio, which had affected somewhat the growth and development of his left leg and knee; that in 1946, he had wrenched or otherwise caused trouble in that knee while in the armed services and, after five weeks' hospitalization, he had been given a medical discharge from the army. He then worked a few months, after which he went to the Veterans hospital at Wadsworth, Kansas, where his knee was operated on and he remained there eight months, during which time a second operation was had on the knee. The medial and lateral cartilage of the knee was completely removed, and, also, a vein of the left leg was stripped. When he was discharged from the hospital, much improvement was noted.
On February 27, 1948, about a month after his last discharge from the Wadsworth hospital, the plaintiff was injured in the collision in question. The impact of the wreck caused the plaintiff to be thrown violently forward so that his head struck the windshield of the car with such force as to shatter the windshield, and his knees were pushed with great force against the dashboard. He was taken to the General Hospital in Kansas City for emergency treatment. His lips were cut and bleeding; his nose and ear were bleeding; a large lump had formed on his head; there were multiple bruises on his face, lacerations on the right knee and swelling, soreness and a lump formation on the left knee, and he suffered severe headache and dizziness. He was attended by a local physician until March 3, 1948, when he again went to Wadsworth hospital. He had suffered more bleeding, constant headaches and sleeplessness. X-rays at the hospital showed that the tibial spine of the left knee had been fractured by the accident. He remained in the hospital for nearly a month under treatment, during which time the tibial spine had reattached, and irregular deposits in the knee had been partially resorbed. He was discharged and advised to wear a brace and exercise the knee for short periods. Again on October 27, 1948, he returned to the Wadsworth hospital because of unstability and pain in the left leg. It was found that hypertropic arthritis had developed in the left knee, and a week later he returned to take treatments from his local physician, who treated him weekly for a time and monthly thereafter to the date of the trial.
At the trial the plaintiff still complained of constant severe headaches and dizziness, accompanied by nausea. In order to exercise his knee and leg he wears a brace at times and has played basket ball for short periods, though not so well as previously. The grating in the knee joint has gotten worse and he still lacks stability of the knee in one direction. His employment requires lifting and loading containers of fibre glass, some of which weigh 100 pounds, but generally not more than from nine to forty pounds. Frequently at work he has attacks of severe pain in the head and becomes pale and dizzy, and on several occasions has had to be attended by his coemployees, or taken home.
Prior to the accident the plaintiff never experienced bleeding from the nose nor had headaches or dizziness. His physician testified that the conditions causing the headaches and dizziness were caused by the accident and would be permanent. He stated that the fracture of the tibial spine of the left knee and the resulting damage to the muscles and tendons of that knee and the arthritis and grating conditions therein were caused by the trauma received in the collision, and aggravated the existing conditions of the knee and will continue and become permanent.
The evidence above related substantially establishes a claim for serious injuries and supports the amount of the verdict. The jury was cautioned that no damages could be allowed for any disability to the plaintiff's leg sustained prior to the accident in suit. Damages for the aggravation of existing injuries may be recovered when caused by the negligence of a defendant. Schide v. Gottschick, 329 Mo. 64, 76, 43 S.W.2d 777, 782. The verdict is not out of line with decisions of our courts in similar circumstances allowing for the changed economic conditions of the present day.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.