77 S.W. 313 (Mo.App. 1903), Priesmeyer v. St. Louis Transit Transit Co.

Citation:77 S.W. 313, 102 Mo.App. 518
Opinion Judge:REYBURN, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Party Name:PRIESMEYER, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant
Attorney:George W. Easley with Boyle, Priest & Lehmann for appellant. Thomas B. Harvey for respondent.
Judge Panel:REYBURN, J. Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur. Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.
Case Date:November 17, 1903
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 313

77 S.W. 313 (Mo.App. 1903)

102 Mo.App. 518

PRIESMEYER, Respondent,

v.

ST. LOUIS TRANSIT TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

November 17, 1903

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.--Hon. Franklin Ferriss, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT.

In action for damages for personal injuries, plaintiff's cause of action was substantially set forth as follows: that on the thirteenth day of April, 1902, as she was crossing the street and car tracks of defendant, the Transit Company, at intersection of Eleventh and Hebert streets, defendant by negligently running one of its cars at a high and dangerous rate of speed and by negligently failing to ring a bell, sound a gong, or give other warning to plaintiff of the approach of its said car, and by negligently failing to keep a vigilant watch for persons upon or crossing the streets, and the car tracks of defendant and by negligently failing to keep a vigilant watch for persons upon or crossing the streets, and the street car tracks and by negligently failing to stop its said car after defendant and its servants saw, or by exercise of ordinary care could have seen, the dangerous position of plaintiff on the street near or on its tracks, did negligently cause said car to run over plaintiff and the hurts inflicted were detailed, damages specified and judgment therefor prayed.

The answer embodied a general denial and plea of contributory negligence, in that plaintiff went and was in front of a moving car at a time and place when she knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the approach of the car and avoided collision therewith.

Plaintiff, an aged woman, about seventy-one years old on the day of the occurrence, in her testimony evidenced great mental weakness. She stated that she had always been healthy and strong prior to the injury and was walking down Eleventh street to Hebert street on the afternoon of the day involved, which was Sunday, to visit her sister; that she heard no bell or car, nor did she see the latter, and was struck by the car on Hebert street while crossing going south, and rendered unconscious.

Henry Nagel and Edward S. Fiedler, teamsters, were standing at the southwest corner of Eleventh and Hebert streets and witnessed the casualty. The first named testified that they had been at the corner about five minutes, and saw Mrs. Priesmeyer as she stepped off the curb at northeast corner of Eleventh and Hebert streets, passing from north to south side of Hebert street on east side of Eleventh street, and she fell as she hit the rail and the car was then coming round the curve two hundred and fifty or three hundred feet away...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP