Brown v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis
Decision Date | 19 July 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 23143.,23143. |
Citation | 85 S.W.2d 226 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | BROWN v. TERMINAL R. R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Pauley T. Brown against the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a corporation. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
T. M. Pierce, J. L. Howell, and Walter N. Davis, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Eagleton, Waechter & Yost and Roberts P. Elam, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which he was riding and defendant's railroad train at the intersection of defendant's railroad tracks and state highway No. 4 in East St. Louis, Ill.
The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $7,500, and defendant appeals.
The petition charges negligence on the part of defendant in the following respects: (1) That defendant negligently failed to keep a lookout while its train was approaching and crossing the intersection, and failed to exercise ordinary care to discover the automobile with plaintiff therein approaching and on its tracks; (2) that defendant negligently failed to give any signal or warning of the starting up, movement, or approach of its train, and negligently failed to ring the bell of the locomotive or to signal with the whistle thereof, or with a light; (3) that defendant negligently failed to stop or sufficiently slacken the speed of its train so as to avoid the collision or to keep the same stopped and motionless, although defendant by the exercise of ordinary care could have done so and thus and thereby have avoided the collision and injuries to plaintiff; (4) that defendant saw or by the exercise of ordinary care could have seen the automobile with plaintiff therein approaching and in a position of imminent peril of being struck by the train, in time thereafter to have stopped the train, or sufficiently slackened the speed thereof, or to have sounded an audible warning signal, and thereby have avoided the collision and injuries to plaintiff; (5) that defendant negligently after striking the automobile with plaintiff therein continued on, pushing the automobile a great distance, and after stopping the train negligently started same in motion again dragging plaintiff and the automobile further; (6) that defendant negligently operated its locomotive without causing its bell to be sounded, or a steam whistle to be blown, at a distance of at least eighty rods from the intersection of the railroad with the highway, in violation of the statutes of Illinois; (7) that defendant negligently failed to have a brakeman stationed on the rear of its train; (8) that defendant negligently failed to have a light on the rear of its train. The petition also charges negligence in a number of other respects, but these charges were by instructions withdrawn from the consideration of the jury.
The collision occurred at Black bridge crossing in East St. Louis, at about 2:30 a. m., on June 4, 1928; Illinois highway No. 4 runs in a general north and south direction at this crossing, and defendant's tracks run in a general east and west direction, and the highway crosses the tracks at nearly right angles. The highway is one of the main traveled roads in Illinois, being an ordinary 2-car highway paved with concrete, and at this intersection is crossed by four or more of defendant's tracks. Black bridge, which carries the highway over a small creek, is about 30 feet north of the crossing. The bridge is about 30 feet long. There were railroad gates at the crossing, which were up at the time of the collision, but the failure to have the gates lowered was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury as a predicate for a recovery. It was dark at the crossing. Some distance to the west of the crossing there is a bridge which carries the railroad tracks over a ditch. The distance between this bridge and the highway appears to be about 80 feet, and the bridge, measured parallel with the tracks, appears to be 40 feet long.
At the time of the accident plaintiff was on his way from Chicago to St. Louis. He was accompanied by Miss Margaret Cox. He was driving a Chevrolet coupé, which belonged to Miss Cox. He resided in Chicago, and so did Miss Cox. On the day before the accident Miss Cox received a telegram from St. Louis, informing her of the death of her sister in St. Louis. She then arranged with plaintiff, who was her friend, to drive her to St. Louis.
Concerning the accident, plaintiff testified as follows:
Margaret Cox, testifying for plaintiff, described the accident as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mickel v. Thompson
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. James E ... McLaughlin , Judge ... ... Frisco, 123 Mo. 473; Foster ... v. Kurn, 133 S.W.2d 1114; Brown v. Terminal Railroad ... Assn., 85 S.W.2d 226; Newport v. Montgomery ... ...
-
Hill v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
...327 U.S. 645; Rueter v. Terminal R. Assn., 261 S.W. 713; Zichler v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 332 Mo. 902, 59 S.W.2d 654; Brown v. Terminal R. Assn., 85 S.W.2d 226; Atlantic Coast Line v. Davis, 279 U.S. 34. Negligence is an ultimate, or issuable, fact, and not a conclusion. Welch v. Thomps......
-
McGrew v. Thompson
... ... sustained. Sirounian v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 160 ... S.W.2d 454; Ziegelmeier v. East St. Louis & ... fact for jury though undisputed. Brown v. Terminal ... Railroad Assn., 85 S.W.2d 226. (7) The verdict of the ... ...
-
Ditsch v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
... ... from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Darius A ... Brown, Judge ... ... Judgment affirmed ... Tarlton, 336 Mo ... 1240, 85 S.W.2d 27, 30; Brown v. Terminal R. R. Assn. of St ... Louis (Mo. App.), 85 S.W.2d 226, 233 ... ...