Burnett v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1913
• Citation: 154 S.W. 1135,172 Mo. App. 51
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: BURNETT et al. v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO.

154 S.W. 1135

172 Mo. App. 51

BURNETT et al. v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 1, 1913.

1. RAILROADS (§ 327) — OPERATION — ACCIDENTS AT CROSSINGS — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

One who, familiar with the premises, ran along a sidewalk immediately in front of a train without, so far as appears, looking or listening, when he could have seen the train from various points, and clearly when eight feet from the track, was guilty of contributory negligence, barring recovery for his death, though the train was running at an excessive speed and without headlight or warning signals.

2. RAILROADS (§ 338) — CROSSING ACCIDENT — LAST CHANGE DOCTRINE.

There is no room for application of the humanitarian or last clear chance rule, where, between the time that, by any lookout, an engineer could have seen one who ran in front of his train and the time he was on the track, there was no possibility of stopping the train.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scotland County; Chas. D. Stewart, Judge.

Action by Clarence Burnett and others against the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fé Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs; defendant appeals. Reversed.

Counsel for appellant cited the following cases and authorities:

Laun v. Railway Co., 216 Mo. 563, 116 S. W. 553; Burge v. Wabash Ry., 148 S. W. 925; Newton v. Railway Co., 152 Mo. App. 167, 132 S. W. 1195; Higgins v. Railway Co., 197 Mo. 300, 95 S. W. 863; Harlan v. Railway Co., 64 Mo. 480; Butts v. Railway Co., 98 Mo. 272, 11 S. W. 754; Green v. Railway Co., 192 Mo. 131, 90 S. W. 805; Giardina v. Railway Co., 185 Mo. 330, 84 S. W. 928; Schaub v. Railway Co., 133 Mo. App. 444, 113 S. W. 1163; Duncan v. Railway Co., 46 Mo. App. 198; Lien v. Railway Co., 79 Mo. App. 475; Jones v. Barnard, 63 Mo. App. 501; Drake v. Railway Co., 51 Mo. App. 562; McGee v. Railway Co., 214 Mo. 530, 114 S. W. 33; Caldwell v. Railway Co., 58 Mo. App. 453; Yancey v. Railway Co., 93 Mo. 433, 6 S. W. 272; Boyd v. Railway Co., 105 Mo. 371, 16 S. W. 909; Moore v. Railway Co., 176 Mo. 528, 75 S. W. 672; Kelley v. Railway Co., 75 Mo. 138; Harlan v. Railway Co., 65 Mo. 22; Reno v. Railway Co., 180 Mo. 470, 79 S. W. 464; McCreery v. Railway Co., 221 Mo. 18, 120 S. W. 24; Van Bach v. Railway Co., 171 Mo. 338, 71 S. W. 358; Guyer v. Railway Co., 174 Mo. 344, 73 S. W. 584; Watson v. Railway Co., 133 Mo. 246, 34 S. W. 573; Schmidt v. Railway Co., 191 Mo. 215, 90 S. W. 136, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 196; Boring v. Railway Co., 194 Mo. 541, 92 S. W. 655; Markowitz v. Railway Co., 186 Mo. 350, 85 S. W. 351, 69 L. R. A. 389; Peterson v. Railway Co., 156 Mo. 552, 57 S. W. 709; Stotler v. Railway Co., 204 Mo. 619, 103 S. W. 1; Hayden v. Railway Co., 124 Mo. 566, 28 S. W. 74; Kelsay v. Railway Co., 129 Mo. 362, 30 S. W. 339; Lane v. Railway Co., 132 Mo. 4, 33 S. W. 645, 1128; Mockowik v. Railway Co., 196 Mo. 550, 94 S. W. 256; Sanguinette v. Railway Co., 196 Mo. 466, 95 S. W. 386; Moody v. Railway Co., 68 Mo. 470; Payne v. Railway Co., 136 Mo. 562, 38 S. W. 308; Hook v. Railway Co., 162 Mo. 569, 63 S. W. 360; Walker v. Railway Co., 193 Mo. 453, 92 S. W. 83; Zimmerman v. Railway Co., 71 Mo. 476; Henze v. Railway Co., 71 Mo. 636; Purl v. Railway Co., 72 Mo. 168; Turner v. Railway Co., 74 Mo. 602; Hixson v. Railway Co., 80 Mo. 335; Fox v. Railway Co., 85 Mo. 679; Huggart v. Railway, 134 Mo. 673, 36 S. W. 220; Porter v. Railway Co., 199 Mo. 82, 97 S. W. 880; Fletcher v. Railway Co., 64 Mo. 484; Lenix v. Railway Co., 76 Mo. 86; Stepp v. Railway Co., 85 Mo. 229; Lennon v. Railway Co., 198 Mo. 514, 94 S. W. 975; Petty v. Railway, 179 Mo. 666, 78 S. W. 1003; Matz v. Railway Co., 217 Mo. 275, 117 S. W. 584; Mockowik v. Railway Co., 196 Mo. 571, 94 S. W. 256; Higgins v. Railway Co., 197 Mo. 317, 95 S. W. 863; Adair v. Mette, 156 Mo. 496, 57 S. W. 551; Sackberger v. Grand Lodge, 73 Mo. App. 38; Moberly v. Railway Co., 98 Mo. 183, 11 S. W. 569; Winter v. Supreme Lodge, 96 Mo. App. 1, 69 S. W. 662; Morton v. Heidorn, 135 Mo. 609, 37 S. W. 504; Ham v. Barret, 28 Mo. 388; Rapp v. Railway Co., 106 Mo. 423, 17 S. W. 487; Myers v. City, 108 Mo. 480, 18 S. W. 914; Weller v. Railway, 120 Mo. 635, 23 S. W. 1061, 25 S. W. 532; Bluedorn v. Railway, 121 Mo. 258, 25 S. W. 943; Schepers v. Railway, 126 Mo. 665, 29 S. W. 712; Payne v. Railway, 129 Mo. 405, 31 S. W. 885; Erhart v. Dietrich, 118 Mo. 418, 24 S. W. 188; Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo. App. 355; Lee v. Knapp, 55 Mo. App. 390; Margo v. Railway Co., 213 Pa. 463, 62 Atl. 1079; Railway Co. v. Downs, 122 Ill. App. 545; Deutschmann v. Railway Co., 78 App. Div. 413, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1043; Skipton v. Railway Co., 82 Mo. App. 134; Percell v. Railway Co., 126 Mo. App. 44, loc. cit. 53, 103 S. W. 115; Dyrcz v. Railway Co., 238 Mo. 33, 141 S. W. 861; Conrad Grocer Co. v. Railroad, 89 Mo. App. 534; Fellenz v. Railroad Co., 106 Mo. App. 154, 80 S. W. 49; Dey v. Railways Co. of St. Louis, 140 Mo. App. 461, 120 S. W. 134; Rissler v. Transit Co., 113 Mo. App. 120, 87 S. W. 578; Holland v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 210 Mo. 338, 109 S. W. 19; Pepper v. Railroad, 105 Cal. 389, 38 Pac. 974; Wilson v. N. Y., etc., Ry. Co., 18 R. I. 598, 29 Atl. 300; Crandall v. Lehigh, etc., Ry. Co., 72 Hun, 431, 25 N. Y. Supp. 151; McKinney v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 87 Wis. 282, 58 N. W. 386; Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Booth, 53 Ill. App. 303; 3 Elliott on Railroads (2d Ed.) 1164; Wheeler v. Wall, 157 Mo. App. 38, 137 S. W. 63; Dey v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 140 Mo. App. 461, 120 S. W. 134; Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Lacey, 94 Va. 460, 475, 26 S. E. 834.

Counsel for respondents cited the following cases and authorities:

Zimmerman v. Han. & St. Joe Ry., 71 Mo. 476; 8 Encyc. of Evi. 859; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Landrigan, 191 U. S. 461, 24 Sup. Ct. 137, 48 L. Ed. 262; Atch., T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Aderhold, 58 Kan. 293, 49 Pac. 83; Norton v. N. C. R., 122 N. C. 910, 29 S. E. 886; Grant v. Becker, 12 Or. 329, 7 Pac. 318; Hanlon v. Mo. P. Ry., 104 Mo. 381, 16 S. W. 233; Seska v. C., M. & St. P. R. R. Co., 77 Iowa, 137, 41 N. W. 596; 8 Ency. of Evi. 897; Schum v. Pa. R. Co., 107 Pa. 8, 52 Am. Rep. 468; Baker v. Kansas City & M. R. Co., 147 Mo. 140, 48 S. W. 838; Ashbrook v. Frederick Ave. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 290; Frick v. St. L., K. C., etc., Ry., 5 Mo. App. 435; s. c., 75 Mo. 542; Day v. M., K. & T. Ry., 132 Mo. App. 707, 112 S. W. 1019; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Cockrill (Tex. Civ. App.) 111 S. W. 1092; 29 Cyc. 436; Brannock v. Elmore, 114 Mo. 55, 21 S. W. 451; Schlereth v. Mo. P. Ry., 96 Mo. 509, 10 S. W. 66; Sullivan v. Mo. P. Ry., 97 Mo. 113, 10 S. W. 852; s. c., 117 Mo. 214, 23 S. W. 149; Bluedorn v. Ry. Co., 108 Mo. 439, 18 S. W. 1103, 32 Am. St. Rep. 615; Franke v. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 516, 19 S. W. 938; 29 Cyc. 516; Bluedorn v. M. P. Ry., 121 Mo. 258, 25 S. W. 943; Murphy v. Wabash R. R., 228 Mo. 56, 128 S. W. 481; Jackson v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 118 Mo. 199, loc. cit. 218, 24 S. W. 192; Fearons v. Railroad, 180 Mo. loc. cit. 222, 79 S. W. 394; Montgomery v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 181 Mo. 495, 79 S. W. 930; Meng v. St. Louis & Suburban Ry. Co., 108 Mo. App. 553, 84 S. W. 213; Smith v. Wabash R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 422, 107 S. W. 22; Smith v. Heibel, 157 Mo. App. 177, 137 S. W. 70.

T. R. Morrow and James P. Gilmore, both of Kansas City, N. M. Pettingill, of Memphis, and John H. Lathrop, of Kansas City, for appellant. E. R. McKee, of Memphis, and Felix J. Hughes, of Keokuk, Iowa, for respondents.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

Plaintiffs, as next of kin of their brother, Elbert Burnett, bring this action against the railroad company under the law of the state of Kansas which provides, in substance, that when the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the next of kin, when no personal representatives had been appointed, the deceased having been a resident of that state at the time, may maintain an action for the death, if the one killed could have maintained an action had he lived against the company for injury for the same act or omission. Such action must be commenced within two years; the damage recoverable not to exceed ten thousand dollars, and the recovery must inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow and children, if any, or next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as personal property of the deceased. See Dassler's Compilation (1899) General Statutes Kansas, §§ 4686 and 4687.

Burnett left no parents nor children, as is averred, nor was there any administrator on his estate. Alleging that the killing of Elbert Burnett occurred through the wrongful act of defendant in running one of its trains through the city at a very high and unlawful rate of speed and without proper headlights and without ringing a bell or sounding a whistle, in violation of an ordinance of the city, and while the deceased was going along the sidewalk of a public street in the city that crossed defendant's track, defendant's train by which he was killed then going across that street at the unlawful and reckless rate of about sixty miles an hour, damages are demanded in the sum of two thousand dollars.

The cause was tried to a jury in the circuit court and a verdict returned in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $2,000, judgment following. Interposing a motion for a new trial as well as one in arrest and saving exceptions to the action of the court in overruling these, defendant has duly perfected its appeal to this court.

The contention of counsel for appellant is that on all the evidence in the case the court should have directed the jury that plaintiffs could not recover.

If this contention is correct, there is no occasion to examine into the other points made by the learned counsel on either side.

According to evidence given on behalf of plaintiffs in this case, Elbert Burnett, himself a young man, with one or more other young men, were at the house of one Brunk, a friend, in Nickerson, Kansas, on Thanksgiving Day, 1908. Nickerson is a small city or town of ten or fifteen hundred inhabitants. Young...