Evans v. City of Joplin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Evans v. City of Joplin

76 Mo. App. 20, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 146

DecidedMay 30, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 76 Mo. App. 20 (Evans v. City of Joplin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. City of Joplin, 76 Mo. App. 20, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This action is for personal injuries received by plaintiff on and near one of defendant’s streets, by falling into a mining shaft which had been sunk near the street line, the banks or walls of which had fallen in to such extent as to take a part of the street itself. The judgment was for plaintiff.

The court, among other instructions, gave the following for plaintiff: “The court instructs the jury that if they find for the plaintiff they will find such an amount as to compensate her for the injuries sustained and in estimating her damages, take into consideration not only her age and condition in life, the physical injury inflicted, and the bodily and mental anguish endured, together with the loss of time occasioned by said injury, and all reasonable expense incurred for medical services in and about the treatment of her case, but also any and all damages, if any, which they may believe from the evidence will result to her in the future as the direct result of her injuries, not to exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars.”

This instruction should not have been given. It was such error, in two respects, as to compel a reversal of the judgment. It assumes there were physical injuries inflicted and that plaintiff suffered bodily pain and mental anguish. Plummer v. Milan, 70 Mo. App. 599.

It was further erroneous in directing a recovery for expense of medical services when there was no evidence as to what such expense was. Duke v. R’y, 99 Mo. 347; Rhodes v. Nevada, 47 Mo. App. 499; Smith v. R’y, 108 Mo. 243.

In other respects the case, as developed by the evidence, was properly tried. There is nothing in Downend v. Kansas City, 71 Mo. App. 529, under the [23]*23evidence here, which, as a matter of law, would prevent plaintiff’s recovery.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Ellison, J.

This action is for personal injuries received by plaintiff on and near one of defendant’s streets, by falling into a mining shaft which had been sunk near the street line, the banks or walls of which had fallen in to such extent as to take a part of the street itself. The judgment was for plaintiff.

The court, among other instructions, gave the following for plaintiff: “The court instructs the jury that if they find for the plaintiff they will find such an amount as to compensate her for the injuries sustained and in estimating her damages, take into consideration not only her age and condition in life, the physical injury inflicted, and the bodily and mental anguish endured, together with the loss of time occasioned by said injury, and all reasonable expense incurred for medical services in and about the treatment of her case, but also any and all damages, if any, which they may believe from the evidence will result to her in the future as the direct result of her injuries, not to exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars.”

This instruction should not have been given. It was such error, in two respects, as to compel a reversal of the judgment. It assumes there were physical injuries inflicted and that plaintiff suffered bodily pain and mental anguish. Plummer v. Milan, 70 Mo. App. 599.

It was further erroneous in directing a recovery for expense of medical services when there was no evidence as to what such expense was. Duke v. R’y, 99 Mo. 347; Rhodes v. Nevada, 47 Mo. App. 499; Smith v. R’y, 108 Mo. 243.

In other respects the case, as developed by the evidence, was properly tried. There is nothing in Downend v. Kansas City, 71 Mo. App. 529, under the [23]*23evidence here, which, as a matter of law, would prevent plaintiff’s recovery.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Mo. App. 20, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-city-of-joplin-moctapp-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack