Holman v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co.
Decision Date | 31 May 1876 |
Citation | 62 Mo. 562 |
Parties | SEBRON J. HOLMAN, Respondent, v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.
Shanklin, Low & McDougal, for Appellant.
I. The fact, that defendant's employee failed to ring the bell or sound the whistle on the train that killed plaintiff's cow, is not of itself sufficient to make the company liable. (Wagn. Stat., 310, § 38; Stoneman vs. A. & P. R. R. Co., 58 Mo., 503; Karle vs. Kansas City, St. Jo. & C. B. R. R., 55 Mo., 483; Ills. Cent. R. R. Co. vs. Phelps, 29 Ill., 447; C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., vs. McKean, 40 Ill., 218; Rockford, etc., R. R. Co. vs. Linn, 67 Ill., 109; Ch. & A. R. R. Co. vs. Henderson, 66 Ill., 494.)
Wm. Henry, for Respondent.
I. When negligence is clearly shown, and an injury has actually occurred, it is reasonable prima facie to refer the injury to such acts or negligence without requiring further proof. (Johnson vs. Hudson R. R. R. Co., 20 N. Y., 65; Gt. West. R. R. Co. vs. Geddis, 33 Ill., 304; Howenstein vs. Pac. R. R. Co., 55 Mo., 33; Walther vs. Pac. R. R. Co., 55 Mo., 271; Stoneman vs. Atl. & Pac. R. R. Co., 58 Mo., 503; Owens vs. Hann. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 58 Mo., 386.)HOUGH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action to recover damages for the killing of a cow, belonging to the plaintiff, by a train on defendant's railroad in a street of the town of Cameron.
The evidence given at the trial is stated in the bill of exceptions in the following language:
It will not be necessary to notice the instructions given and refused. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has brought the case here by appeal.
The statute in relation to railroad corporations, which requires the bell on the locomotive to be rung, or the steam whistle to be sounded, before reaching and while crossing any traveled public road or street, provides a penalty for the neglect of such requirement, and further declares that the corporation shall be liable for all damages which shall be sustained by any person by reason of such neglect. Conceding that the servants of the defendant neglected to ring the bell or sound the whistle, the question is, whether there is any evidence tending to show that the cow was killed by reason of such neglect.
In the case of Stoneman vs. Atl. & Pac. R. R. Co., 58 Mo., 503, it was said, on the point in judgment, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stack v. General Baking Company
... ... 43; ... Derr v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Railroad, 157 N.W. 753; ... Black ... Karle v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 476; Holman v ... Railroad, 62 Mo. 562; Kelly v ... Mauchle v. Panama-Pacific Co., 174 P. 400. An ... instruction given for ... ...
-
Phelan v. Granite Bituminous Pavomg Company
... ... 535; Karle v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 476; Holman v ... Railroad, 62 Mo. 562; Reed v. Railroad, ... ...
-
Dunlap v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
... ... Kelley v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 138; Holman v ... Railroad, 62 Mo. 562; Evans v. Railroad, ... ...
-
Radcliffe v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
...v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 455; Alexander v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 494; Turner v. Railroad, 78 Mo. 581; Stoneman v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 503; Holman v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 562. (5) does it state a cause of action under the provisions of section 2124, of Revised Statutes, for the reason that it does not negati......