Billingsley v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1945
• Docket Number: No. 20350.,20350.
• Parties: EVELINE B. BILLINGSLEY, v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, A CORPORATION.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

191 S.W.2d 331

EVELINE B. BILLINGSLEY, v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, A CORPORATION.

No. 20350.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 5, 1945.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Albert A. Ridge, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Charles L. Carr, Hogsett, Trippe, Depping & Houts for appellant.

(1) Plaintiff failed to make a case for the jury on any theory which she submitted or attempted to submit to the jury. Guthrie v. City of St. Charles, 347 Mo. 1175, 152 S.W. (2d) 91, 94; Borrson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., (Mo.) 172 S.W. (2d) 835, 851; And authorities II, III A, IV A and VA infra. (2) The court erred in admitting the testimony of witness Whitehead that after the accident the operator said he did not see the automobile "until he was upon it", and in admitting the testimony of witness Siek that after the accident the operator said the automobile was "almost upon the tracks before he saw it". Both purported statements were hearsay, neither was binding upon defendant, and neither was part of the res gestae. Redmon v. Met. St. Ry., 185 Mo. 1, 84 S.W. 26; State ex rel. Kresge Co. v. Shain. 340 Mo. 145, 101 S.W. (2d) 14; State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, 333 Mo. 941, 64 S.W. (2d) 638, 642, approving and affirming Kurz v. Greenlease Motor Co. (this court), 52 S.W. (2d) 498; State ex rel. Vesper-Buick Co. v. Daues, 323 Mo. 388, 19 S.W. (2d) 700, 706 (statement of defendant's driver at a police station); Renfro v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 223 Mo. App. 1219, 19 S.W. (2d) 766, 770 (statement to a policeman); Gaines v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 228 Mo. App. 319, 68 S.W. (2d) 905, 908; Smith v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 234 Mo. App. 1220, 123 S.W. (2d) 198, 206-207; Landau v. Travelers Ins. Co., 305 Mo. 563, 267 S.W. 376; Sconce v. Jones, 343 Mo. 362, 121 S.W. (2d) 777, 781-783, and cases cited; Woods v. Southern Ry. Co., (Mo.) 73 S.W. (2d) 374, 376-377; Cramer v. Parker (this court), 100 S.W. (2d) 640, 642-643. (3) There was no competent nor admissible evidence to support a finding of negligent failure of the operator to keep a lookout. State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 654, 195 S.W. 722; Carlisle v. Tilghmon, (Mo.) 159 S.W. (2d) 663, 665; Bury v. Railway, 223 (Mo. App.) 483, 17 S.W. (2d) 549, 552; Hutchinson v. Thompson, (Mo.) 175 S.W. (2d) 903, 911. (a) Instruction 1 erroneously imposed upon defendant the absolute duty of keeping a lookout reasonably sufficient to discover and avoid collision with vehicles on Meyer. Hunter v. American Brake Co., (Mo. App.) 231 S.W. 659, 664; Freeman v. Berberich, 332 Mo. 831, 60 S.W. (2d) 393, 395; In Re Weingart's Estate, (Mo. App.) 170 S.W. (2d) 972, 981. (b) Instruction 1 erroneously authorized recovery as for any degree of negligence and casual connection. Magrane v. Railway Co., 183 Mo. 119, 120, 128; Howard v. Scarritt Estate Co., 267 Mo. 398, 184 S.W. 1144; Hires v. Letts Melick Grocery Co., (Mo.) 296 S.W. 408, 410; Perkins v. K.C. Southern Railway, 329 Mo. 1190, 49 S.W. (2d) 103, 107; Cento v. Security Building Co., (Mo.) 99 S.W. (2d) 1, 7, and cases cited; Conrad v. Hamra, (Mo. App.) 253 S.W. 808, 811-12; Murray v. Deluxe Motor Stages, (Mo. App.) 133 S.W. (2d) 1074, 1077-8; Seago v. New York Central, 349 Mo. 1249, 164 S.W. (2d) 336, 341. (c) Instruction 1 erroneously authorized a verdict for plaintiff as for primary negligence without submitting or mentioning the defense, raised by the answer and supported by the evidence, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in riding in the automobile with the driver intoxicated. Pence v. Kansas City Laundry Service Co., 332 Mo. 930, 59 S.W. (2d) 633, 636; Cuddy v. Shell Petroleum Corp., (Mo. App.) 127 S.W. (2d) 24, 30; Davis v. City of Independence, 330 Mo. 201, 49 S.W. (2d) 95, 101; Ross v. Wilson, (Mo. App.) 163 S.W. (2d) 342, 347. (4) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction 3, which authorized a verdict for plaintiff upon the humanitarian doctrine as for failure to stop or slacken the speed of the car. State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 654, 195 S.W. 722; Carlisle v. Tilghmon, (Mo.) 159 S.W. (2d) 663, 665; Bury v. Railway, 223 Mo. App., 483, 17 S.W. (2d) 549, 552; Hutchison v. Thompson, (Mo.) 175 S.W. (2d) 903, 910, 911; Lackey v. United Railway, 288 Mo. 120 Sevedge v. Railroad, 331 Mo. 312, 53 S.W. (2d) 284; State ex rel. Banks v. Hostetter, 344 Mo. 155, 125 S.W. (2d) 835, 836; Knorp v. Thompson (Mo.) 175 S.W. (2d) 889, 900-902; Elkin v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 335 Mo. 951, 74 S.W. (2d) 600, 602, 604; McCoy v. Home Oil & Gas Co., (Mo. App.) 60 S.W. (2d) 715, 724; Shepherd v. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 335 Mo. 606, 72 S.W. (2d) 985, 987 — 8; Crane v. Moving Co. (Mo. App.), 85 S.W. (2d) 911; State ex rel. v. Hostetter, 340 Mo. 211, 101 S.W. (2d) 50; Chawkley v. Wabash, 317 Mo. 782, 297 S. W 20; Ziegelmeier v. East St. Louis Ry., 330 Mo. 1013, 51 S.W. (2d) 1027, 1029; Meese v. Thompson, 344 Mo. 777, 129 S.W. (2d) 847; Karr v. C.R.I. & P. Ry., 341 Mo. 536, 108 S.W. (2d) 44. (a) The last paragraph of the instruction, by advising the jury to "totally disregard the use of any liquor that night by Mr. Childers or any other person in the automobile", erroneously excluded from the consideration of the jury facts and evidence which were material upon the issues of liability under the humanitarian doctrine submitted by the instruction, and which were also material upon and supported the defense that the accident was solely caused by the negligence of the driver in failing to keep a lookout and driving at a dangerous rate of speed. Secs. 8401 (g) and 8404(c), R.S. Mo. 1939, Wallace v. St. Joseph Ry. Light, Heat & Power Co., 336 Mo. 282, 77 S.W. (2d) 1011, 1013; Elkin v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 335 Mo. 951, 74 S.W. (2d) 600, 604 and cases cited; McCoy v. Home Oil & Gas Co., (Mo. App.) 60 S.W. (2d) 715, 724, and cases cited; Crane v. Sirkin & Neeles Moving Co., Mo. App., 85 S.W. (2d) 911; State ex rel. v. Hostetter, 340 Mo. 211, 101 S.W. (2d) 50; Chawkley v. Wabash, 317 Mo. 782, 297 S.W. 20; Hutchison v. Thompson, (Mo.) 175 S.W. (2d) 903, 910; Lloyd v. Alton R.R., 348 Mo. 1222, 159 S.W. (2d) 267, 275, and cases cited; Perkins v. K.C. Southern Ry., 239 Mo. 1190, 49 S.W. (2d) 103, 108, and cases cited; Bouligny v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., (Mo. App.) 133 S.W. (2d) 1094, 1097, and cases cited. (b) The last paragraph of Instruction 3 erroneously withdrew from the jury the issue and defense that intoxication of the driver was the sole cause of the accident. Wallace v. St. Joseph R.L.H. & P. Co., (Mo.) 77 S.W. (2d) 1011; Smither v. Barker, 341 Mo. 1017, 111 S.W. (2d) 47, 53; Thomas v. Stott, (Mo. App.) 114 S.W. 142, 144. (5) Instruction 7 was erroneous because it was not supported by evidence that the speed of the street car was excessive or negligent. Campbell v. St. Louis & Sub. Ry., 175 Mo. 161, 177-178; Wood v. Wells, (Mo.) 270 S.W. 332, 334-335; Theobald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 191 Mo. 395, 430-432, 90 S.W. 354; Higgins v. St. Louis & S. Ry., 197 Mo. 300, 315-316, 95 S.W. 863. (6) The court erred in giving Instructions 1, 3, and 7, because the instructions were repetitious, argumentative, misleading, confusing and calculated to prevent the jury from fairly considering the evidence and any issues presented. Rice v. Transit Co., (Mo.) 216 S.W. 746, 753; Lammert v. Wells, (Mo.) 13 S.W. (2d) 547, 548; Gleason v. Texas Co., (Mo.) 46 S.W. (2d) 546, 548; Dawes v. Starrett, 336 Mo. 897, 82 S.W. (2d) 43, 58; Cunningham v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 229 Mo. App. 174, 77 S.W. (2d) 161, 164; James v. Missouri Pacific Ry., 107 Mo. 480, 485; Stid v. Railroad, 236 Mo. 382, 389; Stuart v. Dickinson, 290 Mo. 516, 559; Freeman v. Berberich, 332 Mo. 831, 60 S.W. (2d) 393, 395, and cases cited; Gardner v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., (Mo.) 85 S.W. (2d) 86, 89-90; In Re Weingart's Estate, (Mo. App.) 170 S.W. (2d) 972, 981, and cases cited; Trusty; Constructing and Reviewing Instructions, p. 108.

Trusty & Pugh and John W. Hudson for respondent.

(1) The court did not err in admitting the statement made by the witness, Siek, or the statement made by the witness, Whitehead, as to what the motorman said about not seeing the automobile because it was a part of the res gestae and was competent because the motorman was in the performance of his duties for the defendant. Landau v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Mo.), 267 S.W. 376, 378; McGuire v. Springfield Traction Co. (Mo. App.), 30 S.W. (2d) 794, 796; Schism v. Producers Cold Storage Co., 128 S.W. (2d) 299, 306; Sconce v. Jones (Mo.), 121 S.W. (2d) 777; State ex rel. Trimble et al. (Mo.), 285 S.W. 729, 732; Lynch v. M.K.T.R. Co., 61 S.W. (2d) 918, 922; Smith v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 123 S. W (2d) 198, 206; Brinkley v. United Biscuit Co. (Mo.), 164 S.W. (2d) 325. (a) The Motorman being in the performance of his duties made the statement competent. Downing v. St. L.S.F. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 285 S.W. 791; Chi., St. P.M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Kulp, 102 Fed. (2d) 352; Lemen v. K.C. So. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 132 S.W. 13. (2) The court did not err in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1 which submitted the issue of lookout because of the proof and because of instructions of defendant. Gayle v. Mo. Car & Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 427, 76 S.W. 987; Weishaar v. K.C.P.S. Co. (Mo. App.), 128 S.W. (2d) 332, l.c. 343; Knorp v. Thompson (Mo.), 175 S.W. (2d) 889, l.c. 899; Mayfield v. K.C.S. Ry. Co., 337 Mo. 79, 85 S.W. (2d) 116, l.c. 123; State ex rel. Brosnahan v. Shain, 344 Mo. 404, 126 S.W. (2d) 1193; Evans v. A.T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 131 S.W. (2d) 604; Schinogle v. Baughman (Mo. App.), 228 S.W. 897. (a) Meaning of concurring negligence and sole cause. Hollister v. A.S. Aloe Co. (Mo.), 156 S.W. (2d) 606, l.c. 609; Kirk v. Franklin (Mo.), 137 S.W. (2d) 512, l.c. 515; Long v. Mild (Mo.), 149 S.W. (2d) 853, l.c. 859; Weber v. Evans (Mo. App.), 15 S.W. (2d) 370; Krehmeyer v. St. L.T. Co. (Mo.), 120 S.W. 78, l.c. 87; Fassi...