Candee v. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit Railway
Decision Date | 12 July 1895 |
Citation | 31 S.W. 1029,130 Mo. 142 |
Parties | Candee v. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit Railway, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Karnes Holmes & Krauthoff for appellant.
(1) Where a party "failed to object to the court's instructions at the time they were given, he can not afterward be heard to complain." Lefkow v Allred, 54 Mo.App. 141. (2) "There was no exceptions saved to the giving of any instructions, and they need not be considered for that reason." State v Elvins, 101 Mo. 243. (3) "It is not allowed to a defendant to raise any objections to instructions, unless such party shows by the record that exceptions were taken at the time the instructions were given." Baker v. Railroad, 26 S.W. 20. (4) "A party wishing to avail himself of error in giving or refusing instructions must save his exceptions at the time they are given or refused, and it is too late to make his objections for the first time on a motion for a new trial." Dozier v. Jerman, 30 Mo. 216; Waller v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 608; State v. Kennade, 121 Mo. 405; State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100. (5) The trial court erred in holding that defendant's first instruction was erroneous. Schexnaydre v. Railroad, 14 S. Rep. (La.) 513; Beach on Contributory Negligence, sec. 393; Maloy v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 270; Tyler v. Sites, 88 Va. 470.
Beebe & Watson for respondent.
(1) Plaintiff, in his motion for a new trial, challenged all the instructions given on behalf of defendant and the court had the power to set aside this verdict on its own motion, independent of the grounds urged in the motion for a new trial. Lovell v. Davis, 52 Mo.App. 347; Hewitt v. Steele, 24 S.W. 440; Milling Co. v. White Line Tr. Co., 26 S.W. 707. (2) Defendant's first instruction was erroneous when applied to the facts of this case. Beach on Contributory Negligence, sec. 394; Bunyan v. Railroad, 29 S.W. 842.
The defendant is a railway corporation and operated a railroad between Kansas City and Independence at the time of the injuries complained of in plaintiff's petition.
Plaintiff alleged that in June, 1889, while he was walking on defendant's track, it carelessly, negligently and wrongfully ran its engine and cars into and upon him and negligently failed to stop its said engine and train after discovering plaintiff in a situation of danger in time to have avoided injuring him, which could have been done by the exercise of ordinary care, and negligently failed to ring any bell or sound any whistle to warn plaintiff of the approach of said train, whereby he was greatly injured.
The answer was a general denial, and that whatever injuries he received were caused by his own negligence, in walking upon defendant's track at a point other than a crossing and while so walking was injured.
The cause was tried to a jury and the jury rendered a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff in due time filed his motion for a new trial which was sustained by the following order: In due time the appeal was perfected and the bill of exceptions signed and filed.
The evidence discloses that the defendant's railroad was a double track road. At the time of the accident the south track was not completed, and both east and west trains were using the north track.
Plaintiff testified that in June, 1889, he was walking from Kansas City to Washington Park on the left-hand track of defendant's railroad. He heard no train coming or any signal given. He testified he couldn't "hear quite as quick as some people and was a little hard of hearing," but had no trouble to hear railroad whistles at that time. Was sixty-two years old, and had on glasses when he was hurt; that if he had looked back toward the train he would most assuredly have gotten off.
Frank D. Walker, a witness for plaintiff, testified the accident occurred about 10 o'clock in the forenoon; "I think it was a clear day." Plaintiff was struck about four or five hundred feet east of a cut of defendant's road.
Plaintiff introduced three locomotive engineers, who testified as to the distance in which defendant's train could have been stopped. Charles F. Kirby fixed the distance at one hundred feet; E. J. Murray at "within seventy-five or a hundred feet," and A. W. Dobson at "from eighty to one hundred and twenty feet."
Dr. G. C. Stemen attended the plaintiff and treated him for his injuries. He testified:
Walton H. Holmes, president of defendant, testified that defendant bought its road in March, 1889, from the company which had constructed it. At that time "it was a very poor single track road." In April defendant commenced to put down a double track but at the time of the accident to plaintiff the south or right-hand track was not finished. "The north track was in a condition to operate on, and the other was not."
N. S. McKinney was a passenger on the train which struck the plaintiff. He testified:
Mr. Peterson, a hotel keeper in Independence, was also a passenger. He was asked:
Two locomotive engineers were offered by defendant and testified as to the distance in which defendant's train could have been stopped. They both fixed the distance at one hundred and fifty feet.
W. E Reeves, who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial