12 Mo.App. 168 (Mo.App. 1882), Otto v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

Citation:12 Mo.App. 168
Opinion Judge:LEWIS, P. J.
Party Name:ANNA OTTO, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
Attorney:BENNETT PIKE, for the appellant. FINKELNBURG & RASSIEUR, for the respondent.
Case Date:May 02, 1882
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 168

12 Mo.App. 168 (Mo.App. 1882)

ANNA OTTO, Respondent,

v.

ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

May 2, 1882

1. No question of the plaintiff's capacity to sue is raised upon a record which neither shows an allegation nor a denial of the plaintiff's minority, but which does show the appointment of a next friend.

2. A petition which describes the act which caused the injury, and alleges that it was negligently done, is sufficient.

3. The ground of complaint being negligence, a petition containing a general allegation of negligence without particularly specifying the facts constituting it, is not fatally defective.

4. If a party desires more explicit instructions than those given, he should ask for them; and want of explicitness is not ground for a reversal if the instructions are substantially correct.

5. It is not necessary, in an action for damages for injuries received while on the street, to show a formal acceptance of the dedication of the ground to public use.

6. If the street on which the accident occurred had been dedicated to public use as a street, and was in use as such at the time of the injury, the defendant's right thereon is not exclusive.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, ADAMS, J.

Affirmed.

BENNETT PIKE, for the appellant.

FINKELNBURG & RASSIEUR, for the respondent.

OPINION

LEWIS, P. J.

The petition in this case is as follows:--

" Plaintiff states that defendant is a body politic, duly incorporated by the state of Missouri, and engaged in the transportation of passengers and freight in cars propelled by steam, over certain lines of railway by it owned and controlled, between the city of St. Louis and points south thereof; that defendant uses its cars and locomotives within the limits of the city of St. Louis, and has constructed divers railway tracks across and along streets of said city, among others along Front Street, sometimes called Main Street, in the southern part of said city, which is a public street, highway, and thoroughfare of said city, dedicated to the use of its citizens.

Plaintiff states that, on the morning of the eighteenth day of June, 1880, while plaintiff, the said Anna, was walking along said Front or Main Street, between Clement and Bryan Streets, as she lawfully might do, defendant, in an unlawful manner, caused one of its locomotives and train of cars to be run and conducted along and over said Front or Main Street in so negligent, careless, and reckless a manner as to strike and run over plaintiff Anna, without any negligence on her part contributing thereto.

Plaintiff further states, that no bell was rung on said locomotive or train of cars while running over said public street, as so required by proper and prudent management, and that said train was permitted to run along said street at a much greater speed than six miles per hour, and without giving any signal or warning of its approach.

And plaintiff further states, that in wrongfully causing and permitting said cars to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP