Sharp v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 26 March 1901 |
Citation | 61 S.W. 829,161 Mo. 214 |
Parties | SHARP v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Plaintiff's decedent was killed by a train which he knew would pass in a few minutes. As the train approached he was standing outside the rail, working, leaning over so that his head was close to the track. The train, which was running 12 or 15 miles an hour, was visible for over a quarter of a mile. It was customary for the section men to work on the track until the engine got very close, so that no warning was given deceased until the engine was within 70 or 75 feet, when his companions called and the engineer blew the whistle. Had deceased straightened up, he would have been out of danger; but he remained in the same stooping posture, and was struck on the head by the pilot beam. Held, that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, so as to preclude a recovery on the ground that defendant was negligent.
2. The engineer was not guilty of such willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of human life as to render defendant liable notwithstanding the deceased's contributory negligence.
In banc. Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; Charles L. Dobson, Judge.
Action by Margaret Sharp against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Elijah Robinson, for appellant. Teasdale, Ingraham & Cowherd, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Jackson circuit court in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $5,000 damages for the death of her husband, William Sharp, who on the 2d day of November, 1895, was struck by one of the defendant's trains and killed, and whose death, it is alleged in the petition, was caused by the negligence of defendant's servants, The answer was a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendant demurred thereto, and at the close of all the evidence renewed its demurrer. The refusal of the court to sustain the demurrer at either stage is assigned as error, and this presents the crucial question in the case. The material evidence in the case is as follows:
Plaintiff's Evidence.
W. B. Cooper testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dutcher v. Wabash R. Co.
...to do. The demurrer to the evidence ought to have been sustained." And again Judge Brace, in the case of Sharp v. Railway Co., 161 Mo. 214, at page 237, 61 S. W. 829, at page 836, said: "Of course it is impossible to say exactly at what distance the engineer discovered the exact situation o......
-
Dutcher v. Wabash Railroad Co.
... ... 137 MARIE DUTCHER v. WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant Supreme Court of Missouri February 9, 1912 ... [145 S.W. 64] ... Appeal ... from Adair Circuit ... Mo. 142; Bell v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 50; Maloy v ... Railroad, 84 Mo. 275; Sharp v. Railroad, 161 ... Mo. 214; Tanner v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 497; Barker ... v. Railroad, 98 ... negligence. [ Morgan v. Wabash Ry. Co., 60 S.W. 195; ... Kellny v. Mo. Pac. Ry Co., 101 Mo. 67, 13 S.W. 806.] ... We [241 Mo. 215] have looked in vain through all the ... ...
-
Murphy v. Wabash Railroad Company
... ... WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant Supreme Court of Missouri May 13, 1910 ... Appeal ... from Knox Circuit Court. -- Hon. Chas. D ... that the engineer in charge of the train ought to have kept a ... sharp lookout to discover persons walking thereon, yet he was ... under no obligations, and was not ... ...
-
Murphy v. Wabash R. Co.
...A. 188; Thompson on Negligence, § 1791; Harlan v. R. R. Co., 64 Mo. 480; Tanner v. R. R. Co., 161 Mo. 497, 61 S. W. 826; Sharp v. Ry. Co., 161 Mo. 214, 61 S. W. 829. 7. The final reason assigned for a reversal of the judgment in this case is that the verdict and judgment are erroneous becau......