Cantley v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co., 38606.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation183 S.W.2d 123
Docket NumberNo. 38606.,38606.
PartiesJOSEPH G. CANTLEY v. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.
Decision Date05 September 1944

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. Hon. Ben Terte, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

[183 S.W.2d 125]

Cooper, Neel, Sutherland & Rogers and Carl S. Hoffman for appellant.

(1) The burden was upon plaintiff to establish defendant's negligence and that the same proximately caused his injury. Williams v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 624; Grindstaff v. J. Goldberg & Sons Structural Steel Co., 40 S.W. (2d) 702. (2) The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applied with extreme caution in master and servant cases and only when the reason for the rule makes its application necessary. Sabol v. St. Louis Cooperage Co., 282 S.W. 425; Klebe v. Parker Distilling Co., 207 Mo. 480. (3) The res doctrine is not applied unless control of the instrumentality causing injury is in the master through employees other than the one injured, and, consequently within the superior knowledge of the master. McCloskey v. Koplar, 46 S.W. (2d) 557; Cochran v. Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 31 Fed. (2d) 769; Brown v. St. Louis Gas Co., 131 S.W. (2d) 354; Whitaker v. Pitcairn, 174 S.W. (2d) 163; 45 C.J. 1214; 39 C.J. 976. (4) The res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not apply because the facts surrounding the derailment were known or available to plaintiff. Klebe v. Parker Distilling Co., 207 Mo. 480; Sabol v. St. Louis Cooperage Co., 282 S.W. 425; Grindstaff v. J. Goldberg & Sons Structural Steel Co., 40 S.W. (2d) 702. (5) The res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not apply because the switch engine was being operated under the supervision and control of plaintiff. McCloskey v. Koplar, 46 S.W. (2d) 557; Pandjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co., 98 S.W. (2d) 969; 45 C.J. 1216; Dryden v. Western Pacific R. Co., 36 Pac. (2d) 394; Lynch v. New York, M.H. & H.R.R. Co., 200 N.E. 877. (6) The switch engine did not operate in an abnormal or unusual manner and cases applying the res doctrine to the unusual starting or stopping of an instrumentality without apparent cause are not applicable. Gordon v. Muehling Packing Co., 40 S.W. (2d) 693; Grindstaff v. J. Goldberg & Sons Structural Steel Co., 40 S.W. (2d) 702. (7) Negligence cannot be predicated on the manner in which the switch tracks in question was constructed as same is an engineering question that a jury will not be permitted to pass upon. Tuttle v. Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 122 U.S. 131, 30 L. Ed. 1114; Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. Co. v. Allen, 272 U.S. 165, 72 L. Ed. 513; Morris v. Pryor, 272 Mo. 350. (8) Negligence cannot be predicated upon any act of the engineer for which plaintiff was responsible as engine foreman. Roblin v. K.C., St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R. Co., 119 Mo. 476; Minster v. The Citizens Ry. Co., 53 Mo. App. 276; Adair v. K.C. Terminal Ry. Co., 220 S.W. 920. (9) The inference can as reasonably be drawn that the derailment was due to a cause for which defendant was not responsible as from a cause for which it was. Therefore, plaintiff's case fails as the jury will not be permitted to speculate as to the cause. Charlton v. Lovelace, 173 S.W. (2d) 13; Payne v. Bucher, 270 Fed. 38; Patton v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 658, 45 L. Ed. 361; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Nelson, 259 Fed. 156; Smith v. Ill. Central R. Co., 200 Fed. 553; Kane v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 251 Mo. 13; Kidd v. Coahuila Lead & Zinc Co., 204 S.W. 284; McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 97. (10) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction A, for the reason that said instruction directs a verdict without requiring the jury to find the existence of the basic element necessary for the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to a master and servant case, to-wit, that the instrumentality causing the injury was under the control of the defendant through servants other than the plaintiff, and, thereby, ignores the principal issue in the case. McCloskey v. Koplar, 46 S.W. (2d) 557; Cochran v. Pittsburg & L.E.R. Co., 31 Fed. (2d) 669; Brown v. St. Louis Gas Co., 131 S.W. (2d) 354; 45 C.J. 1214; 39 C.J. 976; Whitaker v. Pitcairn, 174 S.W. (2d) 163; 1 Hout's Pleading and Practice, p. 614; McDonald v. K.C. Gas Co., 59 S.W. (2d) 37; State ex rel. Long v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 571; Trusty, Constructing and Reviewing Instructions, 13; Carpenter v. Kurn, 136 S.W. (2d) 997. (11) The court erred in refusing defendant's Instruction 9, for the reason that said instruction correctly declares the law and presents defendant's theory of defense. Borgstede v. Waldbauer, 88 S.W. (2d) 373. (12) The court erred in admitting testimony that the derailment could have been caused by stiffness and rigidity of the trucks under the tender, for the reason that there was no evidence to support such hypothesis, and is speculative and bases an inference upon an inference. Cardinale v. Kemp, 274 S.W. 437; Bennett v. Myres, 21 S.W. (2d) 943.

Byron V. Boone and C.A. Randolph for respondent.

(1) The demurrer was properly overruled if the evidence made a submissible case on either general or specific negligence. Schroeder v. Wells, 276 S.W. 60. (2) A case was made under the res doctrine based upon general negligence. Title 45, Sec. 51, U.S.C.A.; Benner v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, 156 S.W. (2d) 657; Vigor v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 101 Fed. (2d) 865; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Smith, 42 Fed. (2d) 111; Williams v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 624; Gordon v. Muehling Packing Co., 40 S.W. (2d) 693; Noce v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 637; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Richardson, 100 Ala. 232; C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Bergschicker, 69 N.E. 1000; Thyng v. Fitchburg Railroad Co., 156 Mass. 13, 30 N.E. 169; Merino v. Pacific Coast Borax Co., 12 Pac. (2d) 458; Eckhardt v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 235 S.W. 117; Whitaker v. Pitcairn, 174 S.W. (2d) 163; Central Railroad Co. v. Peluso, 286 Fed. 661, certiorari denied 261 U.S. 613; Pitcairn v. Perry, 122 Fed. (2d) 881; Manning v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 135 Minn. 229, 160 N.W. 787; Southern Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80, 34 S. Ct. 566, 58 L. Ed. 860; Re Leathem Smith-Putnam Nav. Co., 11 Fed. Supp. 1006, affirmed 79 Fed. (2d) 280; Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U.S. 551; The Columbia, 25 Fed. (2d) 516, affirmed, 25 Fed. (2d) 518, certiorari denied 277 U.S. 595; McPherson v. Thompson. 164 S.W. (2d) 80, certiorari denied, 63 S. Ct. 769; Rose v. Thompson, 141 S.W. (2d) 824; Ash v. Woodward & Tiernan Ptg. Co., 199 S.W. 994; Meade v. Mo. Water & Steam Supply Co., 300 S.W. 515; Cochran v. Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 31 Fed. (2d) 769; Sibert v. L. & M. Ry. Co., 159 S.W. (2d) 612; Nashville Co. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. York, 127 Fed. (2d) 606; Eker v. Pettibone, 110 Fed. (2d) 451. (3) A case was made under res doctrine on violation of Boiler Inspection Act. Title 45, Sec. 23, U.S.C.A.; Benner v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, 156 S.W. (2d) 657; Price v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 220 Mo. 435, 119 S.W. 932; Kuhlman v. Water, Light & Transit Co., 307 Mo. 607, 271 S.W. 788; Marlowe v. Mo. Gas & Electric Co., 315 Mo. 367, 286 S.W. 106; State ex rel. City of Macon v. Trimble, 321 Mo. 671, 12 S.W. (2d) 727; Sanders v. City of Carthage, 300 Mo. 844, 51 S.W. (2d) 529; Colwell v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 73 S.W. (2d) 222; Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 54 S. Ct. 402; San Antonio & Arkansas Pass R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U.S. 476, 36 S. Ct. 626, 60 L. Ed. 1110; Walton v. Southern Pac. Co., 48 Pac. (2d) 108, certiorari denied, 56 S. Ct. 308; Vigor v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 101 Fed. (2d) 865; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Smith, 42 Fed. (2d) 111; Cochran v. Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 31 Fed. (2d) 769; Eker v. Pettibone, 110 Fed. (2d) 45; Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66; Anderson v. B. & O. Railroad Co., 96 Fed. (2d) 796; Didinger v. Penn. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. (2d) 798; B. & O. Railroad Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521; Arnold v. Alton Railroad Co., 124 S.W. (2d) 1092; Wild v. Pitcairn, 142 S.W. (2d) 800; Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 736; Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 36 S. Ct. 444; Kitchen v. Schlueter Mfg. Co., 20 S.W. (2d) 676; Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 63 S. Ct. 347; Urie v. Thompson, 176 S.W. (2d) 471. (4) Plaintiff's Instruction A properly submitted the issues to the jury and was not erroneous. Uhl v. Century Electric Co., 295 S.W. 127; Hartnett v. May Department Stores, 85 S.W. (2d) 644; Thompson v. Kansas City Public Serv. Co., 114 S.W. (2d) 145; Williams v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 624; Pitcairn v. Perry, 122 Fed. (2d) 881; Sibert v. L. & M.R. Co., 159 S.W. (2d) 612. (5) No dispute in the evidence about the operation, management and control of engine. Fleming v. Joseph F. McMahan Contracting Corp., 45 S.W. (2d) 952; Miller v. Collins, 40 S.W. (2d) 1062; Montgomery v. Hammond Packing Co., 217 S.W. 867; Lovett v. Kansas City Term. Ry. Co., 295 S.W. 89. (6) No evidence to support claim engine was operated or controlled by defendant through one other than its engineer. Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 736. (7) Instruction A was correct as far as it went and was not a misdirection, and if defendant thought it too general or needed clarification it must offer an explanatory instruction, which was done by defendant's given Instruction 10. Crabtree v. Kurn, 173 S.W. (2d) 851; Williams v. Guyot, 126 S.W. (2d) 1137, 1142; Rogers v. Mobile & Ohio R. Co., 85 S.W. (2d) 581, 588, certiorari denied, 56 S. Ct. 178. (8) Instruction A was correct as a submission of a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act under which submission common law negligence was mere surplusage and immaterial to which defendant's criticism of Instruction A could not apply. Eker v. Pettibone, 110 Fed. (2d) 451; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Smith, 42 Fed. (2d) 111; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Rush v. Thompson, 39851.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 12, 1947
    ...v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 317 U.S. 481, 485, 63 S. Ct. 347, 87 L. Ed. 411; Cantley v. Missouri-Kan.-Tex. R. Co., 353 Mo. 605, 615, 183 S.W. 2d 123, 126[2]. Noncompliance with the Safety Appliance Act "is a wrongful act" giving rise to liability; the legislative intent being to treat no......
  • Carver v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 14, 1952
    .......         The Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, a corporation, appeals from a judgment for $52,500 recovered by ...Gulf, M. & O. R. Co., 356 Mo. 633, 202 S.W.2d 904, 911; Cantley v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 353 Mo. 605, 183 S.W.2d 123, 127[5, 6]; 65 ......
  • Copher v. Barbee, s. 8104
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 1, 1962
    ......L. Barbee, d/b/a Royal Crown Bottling Co. .         Richard K. McPherson, Richart, Titus & ...570, 252 S.W.2d 306, 307(1); Cantley v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 353 Mo. 605, 183 S.W.2d ......
  • Maybach v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 11, 1949
    ......881, 149 S.W.2d 366;. Schipper v. Brashear Truck Co., 132 S.W.2d 993, 125. A.L.R. 674; McDonald v. ...43, 173 S.W. 686,. L.R.A. 1917 E 233; Cantley v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 353. Mo. 605, 183 S.W.2d 123; ...118, 282 S.W. 778; Stone. v. Van Noy Railroad News Co., 153 Ky. 240, 154 S.W. 1092.] The latter case ......
  • 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