Burns v. Joyce and Walters

• Decision Date: 06 April 1942
• Docket Number: No. 20065.,20065.
• Citation: 161 S.W.2d 655
• Parties: MABEL MARIE BURNS, RESPONDENT, v. PATRICK H. JOYCE AND LUTHER M. WALTERS, TRUSTEES FOR THE CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

161 S.W.2d 655

MABEL MARIE BURNS, RESPONDENT, v. PATRICK H. JOYCE AND LUTHER M. WALTERS, TRUSTEES FOR THE CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS.

No. 20065.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

April 6, 1942.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court of Worth County — Hon. Ellis Beavers, Judge.

REVERSED.

Ernst & Williams and Walter A. Raymond for respondent.

(1) Defendant pleaded over and waived any generality or indefiniteness in plaintiff's petition. Grindstaff v. J. Goldberg & Sons Structural S. Co., 328 Mo. 72, 40 S.W. (2d) 702, 705; Green v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 784, 787, 788. (2) The evidence as to the condition of deceased's body and clothing was properly admitted. Smith v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 84 S.W. (2d) 161, 164; Luechtenfeld v. Marglous, 151 S.W. (2d) 710, 714; Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co., 319 Mo. 644, 5 S.W. (2d) 413, 418; City of St. Louis v. Worthington, 331 Mo. 182, 52 S.W. (2d) 1003, 1009; Connor v. Wabash R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 675, 129 S.W. 777, 782; Chawkley v. Wabash Ry. Co., 317 Mo. 782, 297 S.W. 20, 30; Luechtenfeld v. Marglous (Mo. App.), 151 S.W. (2d) 710, 713. (3) Evidence as to the circumstances attendant on the passage of other trains the same evening was properly admitted. Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Const. Co., 188 Mo. App. 105, 173 S.W. 1081, 1086; State Bank of Sarcoxie v. Harp, 282 S.W. 737, 739; Wissman v. Pearline, 135 S.W. (2d) 6. (4) There was substantial evidence no whistle was blown and the issue was for the jury. Cento v. Security Building Co. (Mo.), 99 S.W. (2d) 1, 3; Rosanbalm v. Thompson (Mo. App.), 148 S.W. (2d) 830, 833; Oxford v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 331 Mo. 53, 52 S.W. (2d) 983, 985, 989; Kirkdoffer v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 327 Mo. 166, 37 S.W. (2d) 569, 574; Dodson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 223 Mo. App. 812, 10 S.W. (2d) 528, 531. (5) The re-direct examination of plaintiff was not improper. Glasco Electric Co. v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., 332 Mo. 1079, 61 S.W. (2d) 955, 959; Harrison v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 339 Mo. 820, 99 S.W. (2d) 841, 845. (6) Testimony of user of the railroad track was not prejudicial to appellants. Gould v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 315 Mo. 713, 290 S.W. 135, 139; Ellis v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 234 Mo. 657, 138 S.W. 23, 32. (7) The admission of plaintiff's Exhibit I does not constitute reversible error. Grady v. Royar, 181 S.W. 428, 432; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Bailey, 115 S.W. (2d) 17, 24. (8) Admission of the testimony of Glen Burns was not error. Sullivan v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., 331 Mo. 1065, 56 S.W. (2d) 97, 104; Grisholm v. Freewald (Mo. App.), 95 S.W. (2d) 349, 353; Young v. Bacon, 183 S.W. 1079, 1082; Griffith v. Continental Casualty Co., 299 Mo. 426, 253 S.W. 1043, 1047; Vortriede v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co. (Mo. App.), 58 S.W. (2d) 492, 493; Luechtenfeld v. Marglous (Mo. App.), 151 S.W. (2d) 710, 713; Drake v. Kansas City Public Serv. Co., 333 Mo. 520, 63 S.W. (2d) 75, 81; Shouse v. Dubinsky, 38 S.W. (2d) 530, 534. (9) Evidence as to the absence of cattle guards was properly admitted in rebuttal. Koonse v. Missouri-Pacific R. Co., 322 Mo. 813, 18 S.W. (2d) 467, 470; Cento v. Security Building Co. (Mo.), 99 S.W. (2d) 1, 5; Perry v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 340 Mo. 1052, 104 S.W. (2d) 332, 341; Adamack v. Herman (Mo. App.), 33 S.W. (2d) 135, 138; Shouse v. Dubinsky (Mo. App.), 38 S.W. (2d) 530, 534. (10) The trial court properly overruled the demurrers to the evidence and submitted the issues to the jury. Birlew v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 104 Mo. App. 561, 79 S.W. 490, 491; Boyer v. North End Drayage Co., 67 S.W. (2d) 769, 770; 29 C.J. 545, sec. 261; 25 Am. Jur., sec. 461, p. 166; Holmes v. Mo.-Pac. Ry. Co., 207 Mo. 149, 105 S.W. 624, 627; Hornbuckle v. McCarty, 295 Mo. 162, 243 S.W. 327, 329; Burke v. Laurie, 61 S.W. (2d) 268, 269; Lynch v. Baldwin, 117 S.W. (2d) 273, 275; Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 220 S.W. 484, 485; Bush v. Sturgis, 281 Mo. 598, 221 S.W. 91, 93; Pryor v. Payne, 304 Mo. 560, 263 S.W. 982, 987; Darby v. Henwood, 346 Mo. 1204, 145 S.W. (2d) 376; Fox v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 335 Mo. 984, 74 S.W. (2d) 608; Rosenbalm v. Thompson, 148 S.W. (2d) 830, 833; Maher v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 53 S.W. (2d) 1099, 1101; Hasenjaeger v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 53 S.W. (2d) 1083, 1086; Kick v. Franklin, 342 Mo. 715, 117 S.W. (2d) 284, 288; Perkins v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 340 Mo. 868, 102 S.W. (2d) 915, 919; State ex rel. Estes v. Trimble, 329 Mo. 16, 43 S.W. 1040, 1042; Thompson v. Quincy, O. & K.C.R. Co. (Mo.), 18 S.W. (2d) 401, 406; Beck v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 327 Mo. 658, 37 S.W. (2d) 917, 919; Allen v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 227 Mo. App. 468, 54 S.W. (2d) 787, 793; Gould v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 315 Mo. 713, 290 S.W. 135, 138; State ex rel. Mulcahy v. Hostetter, 346 Mo. 65, 139 S.W. (2d) 939, 941; Morris v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 Mo. 821, 109 S.W. (2d) 1222, 1228; Compton v. Mo.-Pac. Ry. Co., 165 Mo. App. 287, 147 S.W. 842, 845; State ex rel. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Trimble, 260 S.W. 1000, 1001; Hilton v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 345 Mo. 987, 137 S.W. (2d) 520, 521; Schneider v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St. Louis, 341 Mo. 430, 107 S.W. (2d) 787, 792; Hangge v. Umbright, 119 S.W. (2d) 382, 384. (11) The court committed no error in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 1. Womack v. Mo.-Pac. R. Co., 337 Mo. 1160, 88 S.W. (2d) 368, 371; Perkins v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 102 S.W. (2d) 915, 923; Yountz v. Shernaman, 94 S.W. (2d) 917, 919; Williams v. Excavating & Foundation Co., 230 Mo. App. 973, 93 S.W. (2d) 123, 128; Venters v. Bunnell, 93 S.W. (2d) 70, 73; Larey v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 64 S.W. (2d) 681, 684; Deschner v. R.R., 200 Mo. 310, 333, 48 S.W. (2d) 737, 743. (12) Defendants' requested Instruction "D" was properly refused.

Brown, Douglas & Brown and DuBois & Miller for appellants.

(1) In a pleading the facts must be stated with sufficient certainty to point the adversary to the event or the occurrence in the happening of which or in the suffering of which to happen, negligence is charged. In failing to sustain the motions of appellant, the court committed reversible error. Sec. 916, R.S. Mo. 1939; Schide v. Gottschick, 329 Mo. 64, 43 S.W. (2d) 777; Yeargain v. Importers & Exporters Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 104 S.W. (2d) 793. (2) Plaintiff was allowed to prove that John Burns' suspenders were badly torn up, and his body was flyblown. These bits of gruesome evidence was purely for the purpose of prejudicing the jury, and constituted highly prejudicial error as against the defendants. Chawkley v. Wabash Railway Co. et al., 317 Mo. 782, 297 S.W. 20. (3) This case was submitted to the jury solely on whether the operators of the 7:13 P.M. train, were or were not guilty of negligence in striking plaintiff's husband. Evidence of other acts and transactions and of alleged negligence at other times, had no bearing on the case, was improperly admitted, and constituted reversible error. 22 C.J., par. 835; Green v. Terminal Railway Assn. of St. Louis (Mo. App.), 135 S.W. (2d) 652; Rice v. Lammers (Mo. App.), 65 S.W. (2d) 151; McKerall et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 257 S.W. 166. (4) Testimony was permitted from witnesses to the effect that no warning either by bell or whistle was sounded by the operators of the meat train. This testimony was wholly incompetent, and should have been excluded. Crossno v. Terminal R.R. Assn. of St. Louis, 328 Mo. 826, 41 S.W. (2d) 796; Dodd v. Terminal R.R. Assn. of St. Louis (Mo. App.), 108 S.W. (2d) 982. (5) Plaintiff's counsel was permitted to lead and cross-examine his own witness; this constituted reversible error. Harrison v. St. Louis-San Fancisco Ry. Co., 339 Mo. 821, 99 S.W. (2d) 841. (6) Plaintiff was allowed to prove, over the objections and exceptions of the defendants, that the railroad track between Parnell and the crossing had been used by pedestrians as a footpath, the children used the track going to school, that a minister used it, and that other persons used it. It was reversible error to permit the introduction of such testimony. Cochran v. Thompson (Mo.), 148 S.W. (2d) 532. (7) Plaintiff's Exhibit One did not correspond to any survey or measurements, and its introduction in evidence, therefore, constituted reversible error. Jones Commentaries on Evidence (2 Ed.), par. 1416; Williamson et al. v. M.-K.-T. Ry. Co. of Tex., 115 Mo. App. 72, 90 S.W. 401; Hatton et al. v. Henman et al. (Mo. App.), 10 S.W. (2d) 967. (8) In permitting witnesses to draw conclusions and to testify to ultimate facts which invaded the province of the jury, error was committed. Masterson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 204 Mo. 507, 98 S.W. 504; Landau v. Travelers Ins. Co., 315 Mo. 760, 287 S.W. 346; Baptiste et al. v. Boatmen's Natl. Bank of St. Louis et al. (Mo.), 148 S.W. (2d) 743. (9) Rebuttal evidence was erroneously admitted. Smith v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 234 Mo. App. 1220, 123 S.W. (2d) 198; Seibel-Suessdorf Copper and Iron Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. R. Co., 230 Mo. 59, 130 S.W. 288; St. Louis and Hannibal R. Co. v. Walsh Fire Clay Products Co. (Mo. App.), 32 S.W. (2d) 97; Chitty v. St. Louis I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 148 Mo. 64, 49 S.W. 868; Clack v. Kansas City Electrical Wire Subway Co. (Mo. App.), 119 S.W. 1014. (10) There was no evidence in this case to make a jury question, and it was error to submit the case to the jury. Hamilton v. K.C. Southern Ry. Co., 250 Mo. 714, 157 S.W. 622; Whitesides v. C.B. & Q.R.R. Co., 186 Mo. App. 608, 172 S.W. 467; George v. Mo.-Pac. R.R. Co., 213 Mo. App. 668, 251 S.W. 729; Newell v. Dickinson, 207 Mo. App. 369, 233 S.W. 72; Justus v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 224 S.W. 79; Starks v. Lusk, 194 Mo. App. 250, 187 S.W. 586; Kerr v. Bush, 198 Mo. App. 607, 200 S.W. 672. (11) Plaintiff's main instruction No. 1 was erroneous. Cochran v. Thompson (Mo...