Court Opinion

ID: 9770462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:05:47.654439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.414908
License: Public Domain

CONKLING, C. J.
(dissenting) — With deference and with respect for the views of those who hold a contrary opinion, I find that after further study of this record and the cases relied on I am unable to agree with the principal opinion in two respects.
It is first my view (that the trial court erred in refusing to give Instruction D, as follows: “You are instructed that if you find and believe from the evidence that the dermatitis or other injuries, if any, which plaintiff suffered, was due to his own physical condition, sensitivity or allergy, and did not result in whole or in part from,any negligent act or omission on the part of defendant, then your verdict must be for the defendant. ’ ’
The principal opinion correctly states that there was evidence to justify the submission of the defense of allergy, but further rules *678that the refusal of instruction D was not reversible error because instruction D did not properly submit such defense, basing that ruling on Arnold v. May Dept. Stores Co., 337 Mo. 727, 85 S. W. (2) 748, 1. c. 754, and Musgrave v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 86 N. H. 375, 169 Atl. 583. It is my opinion that those cases do not support the ruling of the principal opinion in that respect.
In addition to requiring the jury to find as a fact from the evidence that plaintiff’s injuries were due to his own sensitivity or allergy, instruction D required of the jury, as a basis for a verdict for defendant, the additional affirmative finding that plaintiff’s injuries did not result, in ■whole or in part, from any negligent act or omission on the part of defendant. If the jury found those two things defendant was entitled to a verdict. That was defendant’s theory of the case, which it was entitled to have submitted to the jury. Inasmuch as there was testimony from which the jury could have found that plaintiff’s injuries resulted from his personal allergy, I think that, irrespective of what plaintiff’s evidence may otherwise have been, the defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that if the jury so found, and further found that plaintiff’s injuries did not result, in whole or in part, from any negligent act or omission of defendant, the verdict should be for defendant. Therefore, I do not agree with the ruling of the principal opinion that in this instruction “some finding as to the characteristics of the substance * * * would be necessary.” For the error in refusing instruction D I would reverse and remand the judgment.
It is my further view that even if the judgment appealed from is affirmed, that it should be conditioned upon the filing of a remittitur of $20,000. There is no evidence in this record that plaintiff sustained any permanent injury or total disability. Plaintiff has been able to and has performed manual labor. He has refused to minimize his damages, and loss of earnings. He would not accept the offers of employment made to him by defendant as a car repairer “which would eventually pay within four cents an hour of his machinist’s pay.” He declined defendant’s offer of employment as an electrician’s helper. He has declined other offers of employment. If plaintiff had minimized his damages, and the law places upon him the duty to act as an ordinarily prudent person to minimize avoidable consequences of his injury, he would not have had the loss of earnings as stated in the principal opinion. He has sustained no loss for medical attention or hospitalization. Under these circumstances it is my view that in no event should the judgment be permitted to stand for any sum in excess of $15,000.