Bedwell v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

509 S.W.2d 81, 1974 Mo. LEXIS 532
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 8, 1974
DocketNo. 57292
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 509 S.W.2d 81 (Bedwell v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bedwell v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, 509 S.W.2d 81, 1974 Mo. LEXIS 532 (Mo. 1974).

Opinion

Laurance M. Hyde, Special Commissioner.

Action for damages under the Federal Employers Liability Act for personal injuries. Plaintiff had verdict and judgment for $94,000. We have jurisdiction because notice of appeal was filed September 2, 1971.

Plaintiff was injured in April 1969 while working as a car inspector for defendant in their Latta yards at Jasonville, Indiana. While plaintiff was inspecting a train and stepped backward his foot was caught in a steel band imbedded in the ground near the track. Plaintiff landed on his tailbone, experienced numbness from the waist down and severe pain. He was unable to complete his work shift and went home. No issue of defendant’s liability for negligence is presented on this appeal and defendant's only claim is that the judgment is excessive. Defendant says a substantial remittitur should be ordered.

[82]*82Plaintiff had the evidence of three doctors, Dr. Schoedinger of St. Louis at the trial, Dr. Buell, plaintiff’s home town family doctor, and Dr. Rosene of Terre Haute, by deposition. Dr. Rosene examined plaintiff for defendant. Defendant had Dr. Conrad who testified at the trial. All agree that plaintiff sustained a fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. Plaintiff’s evidence also supported a finding of a fracture of the twelfth dorsal vertebra directly above the first lumbar although Dr. Conrad said it was a minor compression. Plaintiff’s evidence also showed a ruptured disc there with degenerative arthritis of the spine and nerve injury affecting his legs. Plaintiff’s evidence (Dr. Schoedinger) also was that a portion of the disc between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae bulged forward into the spinal canal. There was some corroboration of this in Dr. Rosene’s findings. Nerve root injury was indicated by leg raising tests producing pain and by calf atrophy.

Plaintiff’s height was five feet eight inches and he weighed 245 pounds. He received from $7,500 to $8,000 per year for his work for the railroad. His age was 41 years at the time of his injury and he had been in railroad employment since his discharge from the armed forces at age of 19 after the end of World War II. Prior to his injury his physical condition was excellent and he thought he could lift a car wheel weighing 750 to 800 pounds. Since his injury plaintiff has not been free from pain and takes eight to ten Darvon and aspirin per day. He cannot drive his wife’s small car but can drive a larger car he owns. He tried to use some tools and do some welding but could not. He also tried to mow his yard but could not finish.

After plaintiff notified his foreman of his injury he gave him a slip to see Dr. Rotman (who did not testify) but after having X rays told him the X rays showed a broken vertebra and made a hospital reservation for him. However, plaintiff would not go to the hospital but went back to his family doctor, Dr. Buell, who had more X rays taken. Plaintiff continued under Dr. Buell’s care for about six months, wearing a Jewett back brace and taking aspirin and Darvon. Dr. Buell also had plaintiff obtain a firm mattress with a board. Later plaintiff wore a smaller back brace after going without one for some time. Plaintiff’s weight made it difficult for him to wear the Jewett brace. Dr. Buell first thought plaintiff would be able to return to work. However, he examined plaintiff every two weeks until June of 1969 and thereafter every three or four weeks until April of 1971. His opinion was that plaintiff would not be able to do gainful work without having a lot of pain.

Dr. Buell wanted plaintiff to see an orthopedic surgeon and got him to see Dr. Rosene at Terre Haute in September 1969. Dr. Rosene had plaintiff go to Indianapolis for an electromyogram in February 1970. In March 1970, plaintiff’s attorney had plaintiff come to St. Louis to see Dr. Schoedinger who recommended plaintiff be hospitalized and have a lumbar myelogram but plaintiff refused to do that. In May 1971 Dr. Schoedinger saw plaintiff again and plaintiff had an electromyogram which among other things showed abnormalities in the large muscle in the back of left calf. Dr. Conrad examined plaintiff at the request of defendant’s attorney in May 1971. Dr. Conrad said a myelogram was necessary to definitely determine the disc condition. Dr. Schoedinger said procedures of treatment of enzyme injection and a myelogram, which he recommended, involve certain hazards including danger of infection and a danger from anesthesia. His opinion was that plaintiff’s condition is permanent but later said that meant permanent without further treatment. He also said plaintiff would not be able to engage in any activity which is going to require excessive bending, pushing, pulling and probably excessive walking. There could be an operation to remove a ruptured disc which required peeling away muscles from the backbone, removal of spinus processes cutting out the disc with a knife. Concerning dan[83]*83ger from such an operation, he said one or two per cent might not survive operations requiring general anesthesia. Plaintiff’s wage loss at the time of the trial was more than $16,000.

As noted plaintiff refused to he hospitalized and went to hospitals only for examinations. Plaintiff also refused to have a myelogram but did have an electromyo-gram. There is some disagreement in the evidence concerning such tests as affecting diagnosis and the risks from taking them. As to the duty of a person claiming damages for personal injuries to risk injuries from operations, see King v. City of St. Louis, 155 S.W.2d 557, 565 (Mo.App.1941). See also Stipp v. Tsutomi Karasawa, 318 S.W.2d 172 (Mo.1958); Brown v. Kroger Co., 358 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.App.1962). In this case, we find nothing in the evidence to show that anything plaintiff did or failed to do aggravated his injuries. Moreover, the evidence did not show what further treatment was meant or what other treatment could accomplish.

Defendant cites five cases in support of its claim that the judgment is excessive. Beard v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 323 S.W.2d 732 (Mo.1959); Breland v. Gulf, Mobile and Ohio R. Co., 325 S.W.2d 9 (Mo.1959); Harp v. Illinois Central R. Co., 370 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.1963); Johnson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 374 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.1963); Russell v. Gulf, Mobile and Ohio R. Co., 397 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.1965). Plaintiff says these cases (two 13 years old, one 9 years, one 8 years, and one 6 years) should be considered as authority in support of his judgment in view of the court’s present recognition of the increase in cost of living and the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. Defendant says these are the most recent cases involving injuries in any way similar to plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff cites Schutt v. Terminal R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 79 Ill.App. 2d 69, 223 N.E.2d 264

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Koehler v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
573 S.W.2d 938 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Griffith v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
559 S.W.2d 278 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)
Ricketts v. Kansas City Stock Yards of Maine
537 S.W.2d 613 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)
Best v. Fred Weber Construction Co.
525 S.W.2d 102 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 S.W.2d 81, 1974 Mo. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedwell-v-chicago-milwaukee-st-paul-pacific-railroad-mo-1974.