26 Mo.App. 336 (Mo.App. 1887), Taylor v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

Citation26 Mo.App. 336
Opinion JudgeELLISON, J.
Party NameBENJAMIN B. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
AttorneyTHOMAS G. PORTIS and WILLIAM S. SHIRK, for the appellant. G. W. BARNETT and W. W. S. SNODDY, for the respondent.
Judge PanelPhilips, P. J., concurs in the result. Hall, J., absent.
Case DateMay 23, 1887
CourtCourt of Appeals of Missouri

Page 336

26 Mo.App. 336 (Mo.App. 1887)

BENJAMIN B. TAYLOR, Respondent,

v.

THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City.

May 23, 1887

APPEAL from Pettis Circuit Court, HON. JOHN P. STROTHER, Judge.

Affirmed.

Motion for re-hearing overruled.

The case is stated in the opinion.

THOMAS G. PORTIS and WILLIAM S. SHIRK, for the appellant.

I. Defendant's objection to the introduction of any evidence, because the petition fails to state a cause of action, and shows, upon its face, such contributory negligence as precludes a recovery, should have been sustained. Doss v. Railroad, 59 Mo. 37; Nelson v. Railroad, 68 Mo. 593; Kelley v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 604; Price v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 418; Strauss v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 185; Henry v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 293; Leslie v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 56; Railroad v. Aspell, 23 Pa.St. 147; Railroad v. Bangs, 47 Mich. 470; Shannon v. Railroad, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 511; Railroad v. Letcher, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 115; Morrison v. Railroad, 56 N.Y. 302; Burrows v. Railroad, 63 N.Y. 556; 2 Rorer on Railroads, p. 1091, sect. 5; 2 Wood's Railway Law, sect. 305, p. 1148.

II. Defendant's instruction, in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, should have been given. Same authorities cited under first point.

III. The instructions given to the jury at the request of the plaintiff are improper and misleading.

IV. The verdict is grossly excessive.

G. W. BARNETT and W. W. S. SNODDY, for the respondent.

I. The petition does not show such contributory negligence as precludes recovery, for it is for the jury to determine whether stepping off the train, while in motion, was, under the circumstances, such negligence as would preclude a recovery; hence, the court did not err in overruling defendant's objection to the introduction of any evidence by the plaintiff. Leslie v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 56; Doss v. Railroad, 59 Mo. 27; Kelly v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 604; Wyatte v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 485; Railroad v. Pointer, 14 Kas. 37; McQuilton v. Railroad, 2 Pacific Rep.; Railroad v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 167; Sawyer v. Rollins, 10 Kan. 466; Railroad v. Gladman, 15 Wall. [U. S.] 401; Delameter v. Railroad, 24 Wis. 578; Harvey v. Railroad, 116 Mass. 269; Story on Bailments, sects. 11 and 12; Bigelow v. Rutland, 4 Cush. 247; Bradley v. Railroad, 2 Cush. 539; Munro v. Leach, 7 Met. 274; Hall v. Lowell, 10 Cush. 260; Providence v. Clapp, 17 How. 161; Patterson v. Wallace, 1 Macy 748; Aldridge v. Railroad, 4 Scott 164; Coombs v. Purrington, 42 Me. 332; Foster v. Dickfield, 18 Me. 380; Carlton v. Bath, 2 Foster 559; Leicester v. Pittsfield, 6 Vt. 245; Beers v. Railroad, 19 Conn. 566; Park v. O'Brien, 23 Conn. 339; Curtiss v. Railroad, 20 Barb. 282; Dougherty v. Stephenson, 20 Pa.St. 210; Chaplin v. Hawes, 3 Car. & P. 554; Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Met. 1; Slapes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181; Robinson v. Dane, 22 Vt. 213; Birge v. Gardner, 19 Conn. 507; Stafford v. Railroad, 4 West. Rep. 790; Solomon, Admr'x, v. Railroad, 4 Cent. Rep. 775.

II. Defendant's instruction, in the nature of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • 173 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1943), 38360, Chamberlain v. Missouri-Arkansas Coach Lines
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 1, 1943
    ...Cyc., Automobile Law & Practice (Perm. Ed.), pp. 322, 323; Morgan v. Mining Co., 199 Mo.App. 26; Taylor v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 26 Mo.App. 336; Pattison's Missouri Code Pleading (2d Ed.), secs. 229, 300, 310. (3) Instruction 3 is a proper instruction on the burden of proof as to the issue ......
  • 146 S.W. 1171 (Mo.App. 1912), State ex rel. Savings Trust Company v. Hallen
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • May 7, 1912
    ...2 S.W. 3; Petty v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 88 Mo. 306; Crane v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 87 Mo. 588; Taylor v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 26 Mo.App. 336; St. Clair v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 29 Mo.App. 76.] " In the case at bar the evidence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff,......
  • 168 S.W. 833 (Mo.App. 1914), Lewis v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • July 6, 1914
    ...Street Railway, 166 Mo.App. 153; Flynn v. Street Railway, 166 Mo.App. 187; Dutring v. Transit Co., 115 Mo.App. 667; Taylor v. Railroad, 26 Mo.App. 336; Murray v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 501; White v. Railroad, 202 Mo. 539; Eckhard v. Transit Co., 190 Mo. 593; Storn v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.A......
  • 94 S.W. 743 (Mo.App. 1906), McManus v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • April 10, 1906
    ...Mo. 372, 18 S.W. 977; Holenbeck v. Railway, 141 Mo. 110, 38 S.W. 723, 41 S.W. 887; Petty v. Railway Co., 88 Mo. 306; Taylor v. Railway, 26 Mo.App. 336. OPINION Page 745 [118 Mo.App. 157] BLAND, P. J. (after stating the facts). 1. The first question presented for decision is whether or not t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • 173 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1943), 38360, Chamberlain v. Missouri-Arkansas Coach Lines
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 1, 1943
    ...Cyc., Automobile Law & Practice (Perm. Ed.), pp. 322, 323; Morgan v. Mining Co., 199 Mo.App. 26; Taylor v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 26 Mo.App. 336; Pattison's Missouri Code Pleading (2d Ed.), secs. 229, 300, 310. (3) Instruction 3 is a proper instruction on the burden of proof as to the issue ......
  • 146 S.W. 1171 (Mo.App. 1912), State ex rel. Savings Trust Company v. Hallen
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • May 7, 1912
    ...2 S.W. 3; Petty v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 88 Mo. 306; Crane v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 87 Mo. 588; Taylor v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 26 Mo.App. 336; St. Clair v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 29 Mo.App. 76.] " In the case at bar the evidence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff,......
  • 168 S.W. 833 (Mo.App. 1914), Lewis v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • July 6, 1914
    ...Street Railway, 166 Mo.App. 153; Flynn v. Street Railway, 166 Mo.App. 187; Dutring v. Transit Co., 115 Mo.App. 667; Taylor v. Railroad, 26 Mo.App. 336; Murray v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 501; White v. Railroad, 202 Mo. 539; Eckhard v. Transit Co., 190 Mo. 593; Storn v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.A......
  • 94 S.W. 743 (Mo.App. 1906), McManus v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • April 10, 1906
    ...Mo. 372, 18 S.W. 977; Holenbeck v. Railway, 141 Mo. 110, 38 S.W. 723, 41 S.W. 887; Petty v. Railway Co., 88 Mo. 306; Taylor v. Railway, 26 Mo.App. 336. OPINION Page 745 [118 Mo.App. 157] BLAND, P. J. (after stating the facts). 1. The first question presented for decision is whether or not t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results