Beebe v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 11 June 1907
• Parties: BEEBE v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 1019

206 Mo. 419

BEEBE v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 11, 1907.

1. MASTER AND SERVANT — ACTION FOR INJURIES — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

In an action by a motorman for injuries sustained by the explosion of the controller on a street car, expert proof held not to show the cause of the explosion to be the defective condition of the controller or the want of necessary inspection.

2. SAME — BURDEN OF PROOF.

Where, in an action by a motorman for injuries sustained by the explosion of the controller on a street car, it was alleged that the railroad company was negligent in that the defective condition of the controller could have been discovered by ordinary care in inspecting the same, the burden was on the motorman to show that the controller was defective to the knowledge of the railroad company, had it exercised ordinary care; no presumption of negligence arising from the happening of the accident.

3. SAME — PRESUMPTIONS — RES IPSA LOQUITUR.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable where an injury has resulted to a motorman by the explosion of the controller on a car; that doctrine being inapplicable where injuries result from complicated machinery.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; Alex. H. Waller, Judge.

Action by David W. Sills against the St. Louis Transit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Sills having died, the cause was revived in the name of his administrator, Frank O. Beebe. Reversed.

Boyle & Priest and Edward T. Miller, for appellant. Richard F. Ralph and Barclay & Fauntleroy, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries, and was instituted by David W. Sills, the original plaintiff herein, against the defendant in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. The venue of the cause, upon application of the plaintiff, was changed to the circuit court of Boone county, at the June term, 1904, of which court, upon trial had, a verdict and judgment in the sum of $15,000 was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant appealed. Since the said judgment was rendered, David W. Sills, the original plaintiff, died, and the cause was revived by consent in this court in the name of his said administrator.

It is stated in the petition that on December 12, 1902, defendant was engaged in operating a system of electric railways in the city of St. Louis; that plaintiff was in the employ of defendant, and on the last-mentioned date had been assigned by defendant to duty as motorman, and plaintiff was engaged in his duties on defendant's car No. 1,921, which was north-bound on Grand avenue near the Grand avenue bridge about 5:45 o'clock a. m., when a sudden explosion took place within the controller box of said car. Said controller box was an appliance fastened to said car on the front platform. It contained machinery used to apply and regulate and to cut off the electrical force which constituted the motive power of said car. Said machinery was hidden from view in said box, and was operated by a controller lever on the top (outside of said box). It was part of the duty of plaintiff as such motorman to manipulate said lever on said controller in order to set said car in motion and to regulate its momentum, and to stop said car, as occasion might require, in the operation of said car, for the purposes of defendant's business as a carrier of passengers on its said line of street railway. Plaintiff was then and there ignorant of the construction and interior arrangement of said machinery so used to operate said car, and plaintiff's duties as motorman for defendant did not require him to have any knowledge of said machinery within said box, but merely to move said controller as aforesaid in the operation of said car. Said explosion of said controller box on said day, December 12, 1902, was due to the omission of defendant to use reasonable and ordinary care to maintain said controller and the machinery within it in a reasonably safe condition for use by plaintiff as motorman upon said car, as aforesaid, and to defendant's omission to use ordinary care to take reasonable precautions to have the operation of the electrical power in and upon said machinery ordinarily safe for employés, required to use same in the manner in which plaintiff was using said instrument as aforesaid at the time of said explosion, which manner of use was that necessarily incident to the duty of motorman on said car then and there; and said injury to plaintiff was further due and directly ascribable to defendant's omission to use ordinary care to provide reasonably safe machinery for use in operating said motive power as aforesaid. Plaintiff avers that said appliance which exploded as aforesaid was defective and not reasonably safe, and such defective condition thereof at and prior to said explosion was wholly unknown to plaintiff, and could not have been discovered by plaintiff by the use of ordinary care on his part; but the said dangerous and defective condition of said machinery which exploded could have been discovered by defendant by ordinary care in inspecting said controller prior to its explosion in ample time to have prevented said explosion. Plaintiff further states that by reason of said explosion he was immediately thrown from the said car into the street and sustained severe injuries. The injuries and damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as a result of the explosion are enumerated in the petition, and include bodily injury, loss of time and earnings, a permanent impairment of earning capacity, liability for medical expenses and treatment, and plaintiff prays for judgment on account of such damages in the sum of $30,000. The answer was a denial of each and every allegation in plaintiff's petition contained.

The evidence showed that plaintiff, David W. Sills, was a motorman on one of defendant's street cars on the Bellefontaine line; that while in the discharge of his duty on the front platform of the car there occurred an explosion of the electrical controller thereon which was so violent that Sills was thereby blown or thrown entirely off the car, and he fell upon the pavement or sidewalk on the Grand avenue bridge over which the car was passing at the time. He was unconscious when picked up after being thrown from the car. His left thigh bone was found broken, his right shoulder dislocated, and the muscles torn between the elbow and shoulder. Three of his ribs were fractured, and he also sustained internal injuries, as well as an impairment of his hearing. The left leg was permanently deformed, and rendered an inch and a half shorter than the other leg. As results of his injuries he suffered great pain, and was also afflicted with nervousness, insomnia, loss of appetite, and melancholia. Before he was injured he was in good health and had no deformity of any kind. He was 28 years of age at the time of the accident, and was earning as motorman between 12 and 14 dollars per week. He had been unable to resume work since the time he was injured. Sills testified that he had no technical knowledge of the controller box or the electrical appliances on the car, and had received no special instruction from defendant or from any other source as to any machinery inside of the controller, except that he was shown by two of defendant's employés, before he began his duties as a motorman, "how to cut out the motor if one should break down." He received instruction as to the manipulation of the lever on top of the controller box by the moving of which to the right or left the speed of the car might be accelerated or retarded, and stated that on the top of the controller were marks or points which would indicate the extent of the power; that seven of such points were visible and two not visible. When asked to state what happened when the so-called explosion took place, and what he did, he explained that the car, without any power on, had been going down hill from Chouteau avenue toward the bridge, and that as there was a rise as the bridge is approached the car begins to check up. "As it began to check up I began to put the power on at the regular rate, and about the time I hit the fifth point I could tell then that something was wrong, but it was so quick I don't know anything about how I got off or anything, only that I was picked up on the bridge. I knew enough to know that I was shocked, and that was all. The car had shocked me a number of times before that after we came from the sheds, but not strong enough to knock me down." He was asked to state what he saw, if anything, in the way of arcking, or any display in the way of an explosion, and he replied: "It was so quick I didn't see anything. In fact, I hardly realized anything of it. I have a slight remembrance of a flash of light as I got the shock, but that was all." Witness said that he had been in the employ of the defendant company about three months, and was not confined to the use of any one particular car; that the motorman didn't have anything to do with the machinery of the car, or the car itself, after the daily run was finished and the car was returned to the shed. Being asked to state what method of inspection or examination of the controller boxes existed in the car shed from whence he took his car on the morning of the accident, witness answered: "The only inspection system I saw there was, where a car had to be fixed, where it had a bad break, the light wire was bad, or anything was wrong when you got done with it, and was ready to put it away for the night, you marked on a book showing what was the matter with the car. That is the only inspection system I knew of." The motorman, he said, would write down what was wrong with the car on a book in the office after bringing the car in for the night, which book was expressly provided for that purpose. He had experienced, as...