Alley v. Wall
| Decision Date | 02 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 18945.,18945. |
| Citation | Alley v. Wall, 272 S.W. 999 (Mo. App. 1925) |
| Parties | ALLEY v. WALL. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis, County; G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Marie Alley against Olivia Wall. judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.
F. H. Blades and A. E. L. Gardner, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
W. H. Guest, R. S. Harbison, and John A. Nolan, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in defendant's automobile, as her guest, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant.The case was tried before the court and a jury, and, from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500, the defendant has appealed.
The charging part of the petition is as follows:
"That plaintiff was riding in an automobile of the type commonly known as a sedan, belonging to and being operated by the defendant; that plaintiff was then and there a passenger in said automobile at the invitation of the defendant and sitting on the right side of the rear seat of said automobile and exercising due care for her own safety; that at the time aforesaid said automobile was proceeding southwardly along the central portion of Dougherty Ferry road, a public highway in the county of St. Louis and state of Missouri, and had reached a point in said road north of Valley Park when the defendant, without warning, and for causes and reasons to plaintiff wholly unknown, and which plaintiff has been unable to ascertain, suddenly and negligently and carelessly permitted said automobile to run off said highway, thereby causing said automobile to plunge into a drainage ditch at the left or east side of said highway, whereby said automobile was overturned and plaintiff violently jostled against the seats, sides, and top of said automobile, and violently thrown against and through the left side of the said automobile, and whereby plaintiff's head, body, and limbs were wounded, bruised, lacerated, and contused, the tibia and fibula of plaintiff's left leg badly fractured, the navicular bone in plaintiff's left ankle fractured."* * *
The answer is a general denial.Summarized from the record, the facts are these: On the 30th day of August, 1922, about noon, the defendant started from her home in the city of St. Louis, Mo., for a ride in her automobile, which she was driving, with the plaintiff, Mrs. Farlow, and Mrs. Cook, as her guests.Mrs. Cook was sitting on the front seat with the defendant, while the other two guests were sitting on the rear seat.The automobile was proceeding southwardly along a public highway in the county of St. Louis, Mo., when the defendant, in attempting to pass a truck, ran her automobile off the highway, thereby causing it to plunge into a drainage ditch at the left of the highway, thus overturning the automobile and severely injuring the plaintiff.
Regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, the plaintiff testified as follows:
Mrs. Farlow, a witness for plaintiff, testified as follows.
Cross-examination:
"The first intimation I had of the automobile going into the ditch was that it went over on the left side and went down into the ditch and turned over on its side."
H. B. Strohm, a witness for plaintiff, testified as follows:
Cross-examination:
The defendant, in her own behalf, gave the following account of the accident:
Cross-examination:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Tabler v. Perry
...the court did not err in the giving of this instruction. Rockenstein v. Rogers, 31 S.W.2d 792; Mackler v. Barnert, 49 S.W.2d 244; Alley v. Wall, 272 S.W. 999. (3) court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial. (a) The trial court's order granting a new trial on the stated......
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Brancato v. Trimble
...v. Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 189; Dougherty v. Railroad, 81 Mo. 325; Kilroy v. Railroad, 195 S.W. 522; Svast v. White, 5 S.W.2d 668; Allie v. Wall, 272 S.W. 999; Stroud v. Storage Co., 285 S.W. 165; Jackson v. Johnson, 248 Mo. 680; Dakan v. Mercantile Co., 197 Mo. 238; Loftus v. Met. St. Ry. C......
-
McFarland v. Dixie Machinery & Equipment Co.
...4 S.W.2d 835. (4) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 properly covered the case and was not erroneous. Roman v. Hendricks, 80 S.W.2d 907; Alley v. Wall, 272 S.W. 999. (5) Defendant, Dixie Machinery & Equipment Company, cannot now be heard to complain that plaintiff did not have a right to institute o......
-
Annin v. Jackson
...and be negligence per se. Ginter v. Donough, 179 S.W. 732; Wilmore v. Holmes, 7 S.W.2d 410; Denny v. Randall, 202 S.W. 602; Alley v. Wall, 272 S.W. 999. (2) invited guest riding at the urgent solicitation of the driver under the facts existing in this case is not contributorily negligent as......