Steele v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 30 March 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 17029.,17029. |
Citation | 175 S.W. 177,265 Mo. 97 |
Parties | STEELE v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Walter A. Powell, Judge.
Action by Edward B. Steele against the Kansas City Southern Railway Company. From an order granting defendant a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Action for personal injuries. Plaintiff below, who is appellant here, obtained a verdict which upon motion of defendant was set aside and a new trial granted by the court. From this order granting a new trial plaintiff appeals. The ground for the granting of a new trial was that the court had erred in refusing to sustain defendant's demurrer to the evidence and in refusing to give a peremptory instruction, requested by defendant, that the finding of the jury should be for defendant.
The facts in the case so far as they are pertinent to the questions raised upon this appeal are about as follows: Plaintiff was on and about the night of October 25, 1910, employed in the water department of Kansas City as an emergency inspector. His duties as such required him to work at night. About midnight of October 25th, or shortly thereafter on the morning of October 26th, plaintiff had started to walk down Second street from Walnut street to Grand avenue, for the purpose of inspecting a hydrant somewhere near Second and Grand, which he says had been reported on the preceding evening to be leaking. There are on said Second street a number of railroad tracks which either belong to, or are used by, the defendant. It is immaterial as to the ownership, though the proof shows that these tracks are used by some three or four other railroads besides the defendant here. Among other tracks on this street there are what are called in the record the "north main track," on which track plaintiff was hurt, and the "south main track." These tracks on Second street run in an easterly and westerly direction. In the neighborhood, and north of the north main track, there is a spur track leading to some mercantile establishments situate along Second street; particularly one leading to the premises of Clemons & Co., who appear to be wholesale dealers in fruit and produce. The spur track leading to the Clemons premises joins the north main track by a switch somewhere near Walnut street. The injury to plaintiff occurred on Second street, and between Walnut street and Grand avenue. There is another switch connecting the north main track with another spur which leads out to other mercantile establishments in the neighborhood. These two switches, both of which connect with the north main track, are about 200 feet apart. Plaintiff was struck and injured about 100 feet west of Grand avenue, and therefore about 200 feet from Walnut street. No witness saw him hit, nor did any one see him upon the railroad track at or near where he was hit, until he was found lying between the north and south main line tracks very seriously injured. The case turns, therefore, wholly upon the testimony of plaintiff himself, and makes it necessary for us to rely upon his statement, a large part of which, to illustrate the subjoined discussion, we are compelled to set out in this statement in hæc verbs.
Plaintiff, testifying for himself, in substance, said that he reached the city hall, on the evening of October 25th, somewhere about 5 o'clock; that he was suffering from a very severe headache, and, after having taken some bromo-seltzer at a neighboring drug store, went into the city hall, sat down in a chair there, and slept until 12 o'clock; that he then ate supper at a neighboring restaurant and started to walk to Second and Main streets to see some person there with whom he had an engagement; that he did not find this person in at the midnight hour at which he called, and thereupon he walked east on Second street, toward the corner of Second street and Grand avenue, with as view of examining the hydrant which we mention above. His testimony is important and since the whole case turns upon it, we quote it:
The above is all that is pertinent in plaintiff's first examination in chief as to his actions, whereabouts, and position when he was hit. As to other matters, they, are either unimportant or not controverted. On his cross-examination his pertinent testimony as to his position when struck, and as to the conditions under which he was struck, was as follows:
Later in the cross-examination of plaintiff he was asked whether, when he stepped 2from his position between the two tracks over on to the north track whereon he was hurt, he looked behind him to see whether the engine or train were approaching, and he replied unequivocally that he did not. After this examination the plaintiff, as the record discloses, was excused as a witness, without any intimation by him or his counsel that he would be used further. After one other witness for plaintiff was heard, the evening adjourning hour having arrived, the court adjourned until Wednesday, May 24, 1911. On the following morning, that is, on the morning of May 24, 1911, after two other witnesses were called and had testified in behalf of plaintiff, the latter again took the stand in his own behalf, upon which the following testimony was given by him, omitting objections and exceptions and rulings of the court, which, since plaintiff had a verdict below, are no wise involved:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Devine v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.
...90 S.W. (2d) 118; Massachusetts Protective Assn. v. Mouber, 110 Fed. (2d) 203; Smith v. Mo. Ins. Co., 60 S.W. (2d) 730; Steele v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 175 S.W. 177; Siegel v. M.-K.-T. Ry. Co., 119 S.W. (2d) 376; Stall v. First Natl. Bank of Independence, 132 S.W. (2d) 682; Massey-Harris......
-
McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...instruct the jury that plaintiff was not engaged in interstate transportation at that time. Tungel v. Cook, 94 S.W. (2d) 925; Steele v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 97; Adelsberger v. Sheehy, 59 S.W. (2d) 647. (5) The plaintiff's injury was the direct and proximate result of his own carelessne......
-
Moller-Vandenboom Lbr. Co. v. Boudreau
...its interests made by witness White and defendant may rely upon the admissions made by him as admissions made by plaintiff Steele v. Railroad, 265 Mo. 97; Kansas City Granite Co. v. Jordan, 316 Mo. 1118. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer of defendant Boudreau to plaintiff's e......
-
Publicity Bldg. Realty Corp. v. Thomann
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William B ... Flynn, Judge ... ... Hill, 236 S.W ... 1054; Troost Ave. Cemetery Co. v. Kansas City, 154 ... S.W.2d 90, 348 Mo. 561; Oldham v. McKay, 138 S.W.2d ... Jackoway-Katz Cap Co., ... 336 Mo. 1000, 82 S.W.2d 909; Steele v. Kansas City So ... Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 97, 175 S.W. 177; Smithers v ... ...