Hudson v. The Wabash Western Railway Company

Decision Date25 June 1894
Citation27 S.W. 717,123 Mo. 445
PartiesHudson, Appellant, v. The Wabash Western Railway Company
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jacob Klein Judge.

Affirmed.

Smith P. Galt for appellant.

(1) The court erred in excluding the testimony for plaintiff tending to show that for six months before the time plaintiff was injured, it was the almost daily practice of the defendant company to leave its train of cars on the track upon which they were the day that plaintiff was injured, across Montgomery street, and extending north and south of it for a length of six blocks, for a long time each day, without any locomotive attached to them, and plaintiff knew it. Wilkins v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 93; Boggs v Railroad, 18 Mo.App. 278; Backenstone v Railroad, 23 Mo.App. 156; Karle v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 483; Johnson v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 152. (2) The court erred in giving defendant's instruction in the nature of the demurrer to the evidence. Wilkins v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 93; Grant v. Railroad, 2 MacArthur, 277; Shear. & Redf. on Neg. [4 Ed.], sec. 479, pp. 284-288; Fitzpatrick v. Railroad, 35 Md. 32; Meek v. Railroad, 38 Ohio St. 632; Correll v. Railroad, 38 Iowa 120; Moberly v. Railroad, 17 Mo.App. 542; Kellogg v. Railroad, 26 Wis. 223; Johnson v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 551; Buesching v. Gas Co., 73 Mo. 232; Barton v. Springfield, 110 Mass. 131; Snow v. Provincetown, 121 Mass. 580; Smith v. City, 45 Mo. 449; Mahoney v. Railroad, 114 Mass; Thompson on Neg., 1203, 1206.

F. W. Lehmann and George S. Grover for respondent.

(1) The evidence excluded was immaterial, because not relevant to the issues made by the pleadings, and because it does not appear that the plaintiff entertained the belief, because of the facts offered to be proved, that the cars standing across the street were detached cars not intended to be presently moved, and it does affirmatively appear that he believed they were not detached, and were presently to be moved. (2) The case as presented on this appeal is the same as the case presented on the former appeal, and the plaintiff is concluded by the ruling and opinion on that appeal. Hudson v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 13; Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. (U.S.) 467; Bank v. Taylor, 62 Mo. 338; Adair County v. Ownby, 75 Mo. 282; Gaines v. Fender, 82 Mo. 505; McKinney v. Harral, 36 Mo.App. 337; Whitaker v. Johnson Co., 12 Iowa 595; Myers v. Johnson Co., 14 Iowa 47; Goodenow v. Litchfield, 59 Iowa 226; Dows v. McMichael, 6 Paige, 139; Bonchaud v. Dias, 3 Denio, 238; Randles v. Randles, 67 Ind. 434; Merriam v. Woodcock, 104 Mass. 326; Stayner's Case, 33 Ohio St. 481; Wynning v. Railroad, 67 Mich. 677. (3) The plaintiff, upon his own showing, was guilty of negligence contributing to and causing the injury complained of. Lewis v. Railroad, 38 Md. 588; Railroad v. Dewy, 26 Ill. 255; Railroad v. Pinchin, 112 Ind. 592; S. C., 31 Am. and Eng. R. R. Cases, 428; Smith v. Railroad, 55 Iowa 33; O'Mara v. Canal, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 192; Railroad v. Copeland, 61 Ala. 376; Gahagan v. Railroad, 1 Allen (Mass.), 187; Andrews v. Railroad, (Ga.), 45 Am. and Eng. R. R. Cases, 171; Stillson v. Railroad, 67 Mo. 617; Hudson v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 13; Corcoran v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 399.

Black C. J., dissents.

OPINION

In Banc

Per Curiam.

This an action for personal injuries in which plaintiff was obliged to take a nonsuit with leave, etc., by reason of the ruling of the trial court, in giving an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, at the close of his case.

It is the same action reported on a former appeal, 101 Mo. 13, 14 S.W. 15.

Plaintiff's petition alleges negligence on the side of defendant in failing to obey certain ordinances of the city of St. Louis, where his injury occurred; and in carelessly operating its cars, etc.

The answer contained a general denial, and a plea of contributory negligence, which was put at issue by plaintiff's reply.

The cause came to trial before Judge Klein and a jury.

Plaintiff introduced certain municipal ordinances of St. Louis, forbidding the moving of locomotives, cars, etc., without constant sounding of the engine bell; forbidding the running of cars moved by steam across or along any improved street, without having a watchman at each street crossing, etc.; forbidding the obstruction of any street crossing by a train for more than five minutes; requiring a backing car to have a man stationed on the end farthest from the engine to give danger signals; and requiring all freight trains, moving in the city limits, to be manned with experienced brakemen, stationed so as to see the danger signals and hear the signals from the engine.

The plaintiff then testified in his own behalf. The substance of his evidence is as follows:

On the eighteenth day of November, 1887, he was working at Schulenburg and Boeckeler's saw mill, situated east of defendant's railroad tracks. He was one of a gang whose duty it was to keep the lumber cleared away from the men who worked on the top floor of the mill.

He lived west of the tracks. At 12 o'clock noon he went home to dinner, passing west on Montgomery street, which was macadamized on both sides of the railroad tracks. At that time there were no cars standing across Montgomery street, but there were cars standing on each side of that street.

At twenty-nine minutes after 12 o'clock, he left his home to return to the saw mill. As he passed out, the 12:30 whistle blew.

His house was situated higher than the railroad track. He could see a long distance north and south. The cars of the defendant were then standing across Montgomery street. There was no locomotive connected with them, when he left his yard. When he got to Montgomery street, two laboring men who worked east of the railroad tracks, jumped up and passed over the cars and went on, down Montgomery street.

Plaintiff waited on Montgomery street, west of the train, until 12:40, when the saw mill whistle blew, and he started to pass through between the cars, as the other two men had done. In his hurry, he put one foot south of the pin-head and one north. Just then the cars were backed together, and caught both of his feet, but he jerked one out, and the other was badly mashed. He hung there for about a minute and then fell east of the track and lay on the ground until 1 o'clock, when the train pulled north. So much of it was moved as was north of a point distant the length of a car and a half south of Montgomery street. The remainder of the train, from that point south for three blocks, was left standing.

While he was there, no brakeman was on the rear part of the train. There was no watchman at Montgomery street.

This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Byars v. Wabash Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 1911
    ... ... duty of the railroad company, or its agent in charge of said ... locomotive engine and running same ... 80; Harlan v. Railroad, 65 Mo ... 22; 29 Cyc. 848, 489, 490; Hudson v. Railroad, 101 ... Mo. 33; same case, 123 Mo. 445; Kelley v ... the rule that the traveler approaching a railway crossing is ... bound under all circumstances to stop as well as to look ... ...
  • Wojtylak v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1905
    ... ... 260 WOJTYLAK v. KANSAS & TEXAS COAL COMPANY, Appellant Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division May ... 387; Church v. Railroad, 119 Mo. 203; ... Hudson v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 445; Railroad v ... Finley, 12 ... 297] that State, ... in Western A. C. & C. Co. v. Beaver, 192 Ill. 333, ... 61 N.E. 335, ... ...
  • Moore v. Wabash R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 1911
    ... ... WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY", Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis May 2, 1911 ...   \xC2" ... Harlan v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 22; 29 Cyc. 488, 489, ... 490; Hudson v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 1, Same case, 123 ... Mo. 445; Kelley v. Railroad, ... adjacent, to the right of way of the Chicago & Alton Railway ... Company, the tracks of which, it is said, are situate only ... adjacent to each other, running east and west through the ... western portion of the city of Mexico, a considerable ... excavation was made for ... ...
  • Maness v. Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1910
    ... ... 469; ... Murray v. St. Louis Co., 176 Mo. 183; McManamee ... v. Railroad, 135 Mo. 440; Hudson v. Railroad, ... 123 Mo. 445; Payne v. Railroad, 136 Mo. 562; ... Peterson v. St. Louis Co., 156 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT