Arbogast v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 53987

Decision Date09 March 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 53987,53987,1
Citation452 S.W.2d 81
PartiesLinda Joan ARBOGAST, a Minor, by Alan O. Arbogast, Her Natural Father and Next Friend, and Alan O. Arbogast, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Edwin Rader, Paul H. Schramm, Clayton, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert C. Ely, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

SAMUEL E. SEMPLE, Special Judge.

This is an action for $40,000 for personal injuries to plaintiff Linda Joan Arbogast, a child, in one count, and for $2,500 damages for medical and hospital expenses incurred by the father, plaintiff Alan O. Arbogast, in the second count. The trial court sustained defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs have appealed.

Plaintiff Linda J. Arbogast, a child almost twelve years old, was injured in a fall from a trestle of defendant Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Linda was visiting her aunt in Maplewood, Missouri, at the time of her injury. The evidence presented revealed that on the evening of the 14th of June (the day before plaintiff fell) Linda, her cousin Julie Blanton, and some other children living in the neighborhood were playing in a parking lot close to the Blanton home. All of the children went up a hill from the parking lot to a sign next to the railroad tracks. A train came along and stopped. A trainman got off the train and after going on an errand to a nearby store came back and talked to the children and asked them if they would like to get on the train. The trainman after showing the children the caboose took them for a ride up the tracks and on returning to the place where the children got on, stopped and let them off. The trainman, who was the engineer on the train, told the children that if they wanted another ride on the train to walk up and wave your hands over your head and I will stop the train and pick you up.

On the evening of the following day, June 15th, the group of children, including plaintiff Linda Arbogast, again assembled on the parking lot. They played there a short time and then went up to the railroad tracks by the sign and went up the tracks a ways. They traveled over a trestle across Manchester Road and another trestle over a creek. After playing a while and watching the boys throw some metal disks the group started back. As plaintiff Linda Arbogast and the others started back to the place where they entered the railroad property, Julie Blanton thought she heard a train coming and they started running across the trestle over the creek bed. One of the boys stopped, plaintiff didn't stop in time and lost her balance and fell over the side of the trestle to the ground below. This trestle was estimated by one witness to be one hundred feet and by another witness about fifty yards from the trestle over Manchester Road, which was near the sign where the children came up to the railroad property. There was a stipulation of fact that the trainman who took plaintiff and other children for a ride on the train and who invited them back for another ride was an employee of the defendant railroad, and the trestle where plaintiff fell and tracks mentioned in evidence were owned by defendant railroad. On these detailed circumstances plaintiffs contend that a case of liability was made and the court erred in directing a verdict for defendant at close of plaintiffs' case.

In general, plaintiffs contend that defendant acting through its servant, the trainman, invited, allured and enticed plaintiff, a twelve year old child, on to its property with heavy rolling stock and high unguarded trestles spanning deep ravines, knowing the same to constitute an extremely hazardous condition, was actively negligent in causing injury to the plaintiff child. Plaintiffs also argue that the employee or servant of the defendant in inviting plaintiff child upon an extremely hazardous area and further alluring and enticing plaintiff child with the promise of future train rides, knowing the propensities of children as regards their curiosity and exploring habits, created a duty to care for the safety of the plaintiff while on the premises of defendant. With these broad general statements as a place of beginning and since the court directed a verdict at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, plaintiff may urge any and all possible theories of liability, and, of course, if any one of them is valid the court erred in not submitting the case to the jury.

While plaintiffs do not carefully delineate their theory of liability it appears that they recognize that at best, the plaintiff child was a licensee under the classification of persons entering on land of another as defined in Richey v. Kemper, Mo., 392 S.W.2d 266, 268. Plaintiffs concede that in Missouri for many years the general rule has been that a licensee takes premises as he finds them, Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180, 184, 185, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L.R.A.,N.S. 1045, or, to put it another way, a landowner will incur no liability so long as he is inactive and warns the licensee of known ultrahazardous conditions and dangerous substances. Anderson v. Cinnamon, 365 Mo. 304, 282 S.W.2d 445, 448, 55 A.L.R.2d 516; 33 Mo.Law Review 93, 94. Plaintiffs, however, apparently recognizing that the trestle does not constitute an ultrahazardous condition, seek to invoke liability because of the landowner's active negligence. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's employee by inviting plaintiff child to come on the premises to take a train ride when the premises included a hazardous condition (high unguarded trestle) constituted active negligence. This contention cannot be accepted, as active negligence as defined in landowner cases in Missouri is negligence occurring in connection with activities conducted on the premises while the licensee is present and his presence is known or should be known to the licensor. Passive negligence onthe other hand as applied in these type of cases in Missouri is negligence which arises from permitting defects upon the property or from dangers arising from conditions existing on the property. Anderson v. Welty Bros. Sales Pavilion, Mo.App., 334 S.W.2d 132, 137. See also 33 Mo.Law Review...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Swanson v. Shroat
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 3, 1976
    ...while crossing a railroad trestle, the Supreme Court of Missouri offered the following explanation in Arbogast v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis (1970 Mo.), 452 S.W.2d 81 at 85: 'Generally (the premises liability rules applicable to children) have been held not applicable to condition......
  • Hedgcorth v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1979
    ...9.3 A greasy floor, Hokanson v. Joplin Rendering Company, Inc., 509 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.1974); an open tressle, Arbogast v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, 452 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.1970); an empty elevator shaft, Senseney v. Landay Real Estate Co., 345 Mo. 128, 131 S.W.2d 595 (1939).4 Hokanson, s......
  • Cunningham v. Hayes
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1971
    ...v. W. R. Arthur & Co., 312 S.W.2d l.c. 812; Everett v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 214 Mo. 54, 112 S.W. 486; and Arbogast v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, Mo., 452 S.W.2d 81 (which applies Sec. 339, 2 Restatement of the Law, Torts, First (1934) dealing with a possessor's duty to youthfu......
  • Crawford v. Pacific Western Mobile Estates, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1977
    ...287 S.W.2d 853, 854-856; Hull v. Gillioz, 344 Mo. 1227, 1234-1235, 130 S.W.2d 623, 627." Not until the decision in Arbogast v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, supra, in 1970, more than 35 years after the first publication of § 339, did the Missouri courts yield to the new rules of chi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Section 13.2 Active Negligence
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Tort Law Deskbook Chapter 13 Premises Liability
    • Invalid date
    ...should be known to the possessor. Anderson v. Welty, 334 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. App. S.D. 1960); Arbogast v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 452 S.W.2d 81 (Mo. 1970). When a visitor to the premises is injured by reason of active negligence, the significance of status as an invitee, licensee, or ......
  • Section 13.32 Present Rule
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Tort Law Deskbook Chapter 13 Premises Liability
    • Invalid date
    ...(§13.32) Present Rule In Arbogast v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis, 452 S.W.2d 81 (Mo. 1970), the Supreme Court suggested that, because the law regarding the duties owed a licensee had been changed by the decision in Wells v. Goforth, 443 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. banc 1969), Missouri should a......

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