285 S.W. 403 (Mo. 1926), 25408, Coleman v. Rightmyer
|Citation:||285 S.W. 403|
|Opinion Judge:||HIGBEE, C. Per Curiam.|
|Party Name:||COLEMAN v. RIGHTMYER|
|Attorney:||Wilbur C. Schwartz and Charles E. Morrow, both of St. Louis, for appellant. Thompson & Thompson and Richmond C. Coburn, all of St. Louis, for respondent.|
|Case Date:||April 05, 1926|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $ 10,000 for damages for personal injuries sustained August 22, 1922, in a collision between a taxicab driven by him and a motor cattle truck operated by defendant's chauffeur, in the city of St. Louis, and defendant appealed.
The petition alleged, in substance, that plaintiff was driving an automobile eastwardly on O'Fallon street, and, in the exercise of ordinary care, he turned his automobile southwardly into Thirteenth street at its intersection with O'Fallon street; and that the defendant's agent and chauffeur, while operating one of defendant's automobile trucks in a northerly direction on Thirteenth street, and in the discharge of his duties as such agent, employee, and chauffeur, carelessly and negligently without giving any warning with his horn, and without driving the said automobile truck as close to the righthand side of Thirteenth street as practicable, and at a high and dangerous rate of speed, and without exercising any care, to stop or slow down said truck and avoid a collision with and the striking of plaintiff and the said automobile which he was driving, negligently ran said truck against and into the said automobile the plaintiff was driving, with great force and violence, throwing the plaintiff around, breaking and crushing the bones of his left arm, etc., and inflicting serious and permanent injuries; that at said time there was in force in the city of St. Louis, Ordinance No. 30013, known as section 1301 of the Revised Code of St. Louis 1914, providing in substance that no automobile should be propelled at a greater rate of speed than 8 miles per hour in the business portions of the city, and 10 miles per hour in the other portions thereof; that defendant's chauffeur, immediately prior to and at the time of the collision, was propelling defendant's automobile truck at a speed greater than 10 miles per hour, which violation of and failure to comply with the terms of said ordinance caused said injuries to plaintiff; that defendant's chauffeur did not drive and keep defendant's said automobile truck as close to the right-hand side of Thirteenth street as practicable; that defendant's said chauffeur operating said automobile truck saw or by the exercise of ordinary care could have seen the plaintiff in a position of danger, from which he was unable to extricate himself, in time by the exercise of ordinary care to have stopped, slowed down, or turned said automobile truck aside and avoided striking or injuring plaintiff, but that he negligently failed so to do; that defendant's said chauffeur at the time of and immediately prior to said collision was negligently and carelessly operating said truck northwardly on the west side of Thirteenth street, and by such carelessness and negligence caused said collision and injury to plaintiff; that in consequence plaintiff has and will continue permanently to suffer great pain of body and mind, his nervous system has been permanently impaired, has been compelled to undergo surgical operations, etc.
The amended answer is a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence; that plaintiff failed to pay any attention to where he was driving and negligently attempted to drive around and by the end of an automobile, parked in the street...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP