Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

Decision Date06 April 1923
Docket NumberNo. 23068.,23068.
PartiesBROWN v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; L. A. Vories, Judge.

Action by William L. Brown against Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John E. Dolman, of St. Joseph, for appellants.

Mytton & Parkinson, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

RAGLAND, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for the loss of an automobile truck, resulting from a collision between the truck while being driven by plaintiff and one of defendant railroad's passenger trains at the crossing of its road over Eighteenth street in the city of St. Joseph. The engineer in charge of the engine which was pulling the train was joined with the railroad company as a party defendant.

At the time of the collision there was in force in the city of St. Joseph an ordinance which limited the rate of speed at which passenger trains might be run within the corporate limits of the city to 10 miles an hour, and another which required the bell of each locomotive engine to be rung continuously while running within said city. Violation by defendants of these ordinance provisions was the negligence alleged by plaintiff as the basis of his action. In addition to a general denial defendants pleaded contributory negligence.

Plaintiff's evidence tended to show the facts as follows: Eighteenth street ran north and south. The general direction of the railroad was east and west, but from the crossing it extended in one direction slightly north of east and in the other slightly south of west. To the east the track was straight for perhaps a half mile; to the west there was a straight track for several blocks, ending at defendant's switch yards and roundhouse, but at a point approximately 300 feet west of the crossing there diverged from the straight track another track (the main line) which curbed sharply to the north. There were two parallel tracks across Eighteenth street, the main track and a passing track. The main track was on the north, and the distance between the south rail of that track and the north rail of the passing track was 8½ feet. The tracks were standard gauge, being approximately 5 feet in width. About 75 feet east of the center of the traveled portion of the street a switch led from the passing track on to an industrial track. At the time of the collision a box car stood near the switch, for the most part on the industrial track, but the end next to the street extended westward over the switch points. The car was about 65 feet east of the line of travel along the street, and immediately east of it there was a coal car.

Preceding the collision plaintiff was approaching the crossing from the south at the rate of from 6 to 8 miles an hour, and the passenger train from the east at from 30 to 35 miles an hour. Plaintiff's seat on the truck was back 5 or 6 feet from the front end. As plaintiff approached the crossing his view with reference to the main line of the railroad was obstructed on both sides by buildings and other objects. He could not get a clear view up and down that track toward the east until he passed the box car standing on the industrial track. Owing to the immediate proximity of buildings to the track on the west side and the slightly acute angle from which the road approached he could not see down the straight track in that direction until he was within 12 or 15 inches of the south rail of the passing track. On account of this physical situation he was more apprehensive of being caught by a train from the west than by one coming from the east. As he came toward the crossing, however, he first looked to the east; he continued to look in that direction until he reached a point from 25 to 30 feet south of the main...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Pentecost v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1933
    ...52 F.2d 88; Clay v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 5 S.W.2d 409; Treadway v. United Railways Co., 300 Mo. 156, 253 S.W. 1037; Brown v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 252 S.W. 55; Hall v. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. (Mo.), 240 S.W. 175; Johnson v. Wabash Ry. Co., 259 Mo. 534, 168 S.W. 713.] "Causal ......
  • State ex rel. Maclay v. Cox
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Octubre 1928
    ...under no duty to stop, get out and look for the train. Jackson v. Railroad, 189 S.W. 381; Johnson v. Railway Co., 77 Mo. 546; Brown v. Railway Co., 252 S.W. 55; Pienieng Wells, 271 S.W. 65. (5) The respondents also failed to apply the rule of the Supreme Court which requires that a clear ca......
  • Superior Minerals Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Febrero 1932
    ...v. Railroad, 311 Mo. 92; Flannigan v. Railroad, 297 S.W. 463; Moore v. Wabash R. R. Co., 147 Mo.App. l. c. 65; Brown v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. Sup.), 252 S.W. 55; Swift & Co. St. Louis Transfer R. R. Co., 15 S.W.2d 387. (6) The evidence tended to prove that the defendant's servants......
  • Rawie v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 1925
    ... ... discover the approach of the southbound train until the truck ... actually reached the rails of the first track. Cooney did ... actually discover it as soon as it was possible to do so, and ... thereafter made every effort to avoid injury. Brown v ... Railroad, 252 S.W. 55; Moore v. Davis, 210 ... Mo.App. 181. (3) Plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury ... under the humanitarian doctrine. The evidence showed that the ... engine was traveling at the rate of from twelve to fifteen ... miles an hour and could have been stopped ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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