Welch v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 08 February 1886 |
Citation | 20 Mo.App. 477 |
Parties | WILLIAM R. WELCH, Respondent, v. THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from Caldwell Circuit Court, HON. JAMES M. DAVIS, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Statement of case by the court.
This is an action for damages for the killing of the plaintiff's cow, through the alleged negligence of defendant's servants and agents in running its “cars and locomotive.” The evidence introduced by plaintiff tended to show that his cow was killed by one of defendant's engines on the main track of its railroad within the switch limits of the town and station of Breckenridge; that the cow went upon the track when the engine was from one hundred and twenty to three hundred feet away, and that she could have been seen from the point at which she went upon the track for a quarter or a half mile from the direction from which the engine and cars were approaching; and that the bell was not rung; that the whistle was not sounded; that no effort was seen to be made to slack in the speed of the train, and that the train was running at the rate of twelve miles per hour.
For the plaintiff the court gave the following instruction:
For the plaintiff the court gave only two other instructions, one telling the jury that they might take into consideration all the facts and circumstances in evidence in determining the defendant's negligence; the other telling the jury that they were the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and so forth.
For the defendant the court instructed the jury that no rate of speed of the train would alone make the defendant liable for the killing of plaintiff's cow.
And the court also gave for the defendant the following instruction:
THOS. E. TURNEY, and STRONG & MOSMAN, for the appellant.
I. The injury having occurred in the corporate limits, the proof must be of actual negligence. Swearingen v. R. R., 64 Mo. 23; Robertson v. R. R., 64 Mo. 412; Wallace v. R. R., 74 Mo. 594.
II. The cow was not killed at a street or road crossing, and it was not negligence to fail to ring the bell or sound the whistle at place of accident. Potter v. R. R., 18 Mo. App. 694; Wallace v. R. R., 74 Mo. 594; Young v. R. R., 79 Mo. 336.
III. The diligence required of the engineer, in such cases as this, is after discovering the animals on the track. Young v. R. R., supra; Wallace v. R. R., supra; Fitzgerald v. C., R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Mo. App. 391.
IV. Motion for new trial should have been sustained on account of the misconduct of plaintiff's attorney, leading the jury to disregard the evidence of defendant's witnesses. The third instruction given for plaintiff is inconsistent with that numbered three given for defendant, which was error.
O. J. CHAPMAN, for the respondent.
I. Where there is any evidence to establish plaintiff's case, the court cannot withdraw it from the jury. Plaintiff offered evidence from which a jury could infer negligence. Holiday v. Jones, 59 Mo. 482; State v. Turner, 63 Mo. 336; Alexander v. R. R., 63 Mo. 397.
II. There was no misconduct by plaintiff's attorney. The remarks were harmless, and only made to off-set remarks made by defendant's attorney made to prejudice and mislead the jury.
III. There was evidence of negligence on the part of the engineer. When there is any testimony to support a cause of action, it should be left to the determination of the jury. Walsh v. Morse, 80 Mo. 568.
IV. Defendant's first instruction was a commentary on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...and 4. The petition is bad because it alleges two distinct causes of action in same count. Hoffman v. Railroad, 24 Mo.App. 546; Welch v. Railroad, 20 Mo.App. 477. Burgess, J. This is an action for damages against the defendant for killing three horses belonging to the plaintiff. Defendant d......
-
Hill v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...defendant's liability, two decisions are cited of the Kansas City court of appeals: Hoffman v. Railroad Co., 24 Mo. App. 546; Welch v. Railroad Co., 20 Mo. App. 477. We do not regard these cases as having been well decided. We understand that the supreme court, in Kendig v. Railroad Co., 79......
-
Atterberry v. Wabash R. Co.
......From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. Joseph" Park & Son, for appellant. Geo. S. Grover, for respondent. SMITH, P. J. \t. \xC2"......
-
Sloop v. Louis
...to find for the defendant. Wallace v. Railroad, 74 Mo. 594; Lord v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 139; Harlan v. Railroad, 18 Mo. App. 483; Welch v. Railroad, 20 Mo. App. 477. III. The instructions given by the court assumed the existence of facts not in evidence, and were, therefore, erroneous. Gerren ......