Hutchinson v. Missouri Pac. Ry.

Decision Date26 March 1901
Citation161 Mo. 246,61 S.W. 852
PartiesHUTCHINSON v. MISSOURI PAC. RY.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

VALLIANT, J.

The motion for rehearing proceeds upon a misconception by the learned counsel of the opinion delivered. There is nothing in that opinion to indicate "that notwithstanding the deceased saw, or might have seen, the train within a few feet of her, when she went upon the track, she had the right to presume that she could cross in safety, and when the engine was almost on her she had the right still to indulge the presumption that she could do so, and stoop to recover a scarf she had dropped." Nor does the opinion hold "that the prior and concurring negligence of the company in running its train at a prohibited rate of speed relieves deceased's representatives from the consequences of that act," nor "that the evidence of her negligence ought to be disregarded, for the reason that she could not be negligent because she had a right to assume that the persons in charge of the train would observe the ordinance limiting its speed to six miles an hour." The opinion says: "That act [running the train in violation of the ordinance] was negligence per se, and if it was the cause of the accident the defendant was liable, unless the deceased contributed to the result by her own negligence." It holds that in considering the question of her negligence the ordinance was a fact to be taken into account, and that that raised a question of fact. But there is no intimation in the opinion that that presumption (that she relied on the ordinance) is to be taken as conclusive. The language of the opinion is: "The city ordinance prohibited the train running at a higher rate than six miles an hour, and in the absence of proof that she knew, or had reason to apprehend, to the contrary, the law will presume that she trusted, as she had a right to trust, that the defendant was running its train at not more than six miles an hour, in obedience to the ordinance, and that she regulated her movements accordingly." That leaves the defendant entirely free to show, if it is a fact, that the circumstances and conditions were such as that, notwithstanding the ordinance, she had reason to apprehend that the train was running at a higher rate than that prescribed. This defendant has met that issue frequently, and knows how to handle it.

Nor is there anything in the record to justify the assumption that Mrs....

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Rouchene v. Gamble Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1935
    ... ... Gamble Construction Company, a Corporation, Appellant No. 33262 Supreme Court of Missouri December 18, 1935 ...           Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; ... obey the law. Huckleberry v. Railroad Co., 324 Mo ... 1025, 26 S.W.2d 985; Hutchinson v. Ry. Co., 161 Mo ... 253, 61 S.W. 852, 84 Am. St. Rep. 710; Van Bach v. Ry ... Co., 171 ... ...
  • Cheek v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 1, 1916
    ... 192 S.W. 387 CHEEK v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA No. 17S65 Supreme Court of Missouri" December 1, 1916 ...           Motion ... for Rehearing Denied February 20, 1917 ... \xC2" ... thereof. To the same effect are the following cases: Hanlon ... v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 104 Mo. 381, 16 S.W. 233; Gratiot v ... Railway Co., 116 Mo. 450, 21 S.W. 1094, 16 ... Railway Co., 10 Mo.App. 252; ... Brannock v. Elmore, 114 Mo. 55, 21 S.W. 451; Hutchinson v ... Railway Co., 161 Mo. 246, 61 S.W. 635, 84 Am. St. Rep. 710, ... rehearing overruled, 161 ... ...
  • Moon v. St. Louis Transit Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1911
    ... ... E. (W. Va.) 1016; ... Hauck-Hoerr Co. v. United Railroads, 127 Mo.App ... 190; Hutchinson v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 246; Mullin ... v. Transit Co., 196 Mo. 572; Weller v. Railway ... Co., 120 ... 62; Flory v ... City of St. Louis, 3 Mo.App. 231. But in New York, ... Indiana, Missouri, and other States, where a change has been ... made in the common law relations of husband and ... ...
  • Seward v. Evrard and Cross Town Motors
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 1949
    ...v. Mo. P.R. Co., 10 Mo. App. 252, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 337; Brannock v. Elmore, 114 Mo. 55, 21 S.W., p. 451; Hutchinson v. Mo. P.R. Co., 161 Mo. 246, 84 Am. St. Rep. 710, 61 S.W. 852; Jackson v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 157 Mo. 621, 80 Am. St. Rep. 650, 58 S.W. 32; Weller v. Chicago etc., 164 ......
  • 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