Clark v. Chicago & A. R. Co.
Decision Date | 05 March 1895 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | CLARK v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO. |
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. Valliant, Judge.
Action by James E. Clark against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company to recover for injury received while a passenger on a train of defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
R. H. Kern and John A. Bellatti, for appellant. Geo. W. Bailey, for respondent.
On the night of December 3, 1890, James E. Clark, the plaintiff, was a passenger on one of defendant's trains traveling from Chicago, Ill., to Kansas City, Mo. It was a fast train, known as the "Hummer." He purchased his ticket in Chicago, and retired to sleep in one of the sleeping cars of the train. The train reached Jacksonville, Ill., about midnight. At this point the Chicago & Alton Railroad's track extends north and south, and is intersected by the tracks of the Wabash Railroad, which extend east and west. The tracks of each road cross the other at grade. There were two sleeping cars attached to defendant's train in which plaintiff was a passenger, and he was in the forward of the two. The train reached Jacksonville from 10 to 20 minutes behind time, and a few minutes after midnight. It stopped about 100 or 150 feet from the intersection, and in full view of it, and the engineer, seeing the crossing was clear, drew his train into the station and stopped. When it stopped the locomotive was 30 to 50 feet north of the south end of the depot platform, and the two sleeping cars and about 20 feet of the north end of the chair car, comprising at least 160 feet of the train, were left standing north of the intersecting Wabash Railroad track. There was no physical or other reason which rendered it absolutely necessary to stop the train with a portion of it north and the other part south of the Wabash track, but it was a matter of convenience in handling baggage, freight, and express matter, and discharging passengers at the depot and on the platform. The platform could have been made longer without interfering with any other highway. No flagmen were stationed on the Wabash track or elsewhere to keep a lookout for the Wabash train, which was an hour and a half late that night. There was much evidence that the Wabash train whistled three times in the mile and a half east of the station as it approached, and no one connected with defendant's train heard any but the last signal, which was given a few seconds before the collision. While this train was thus standing across the Wabash track, a Wabash freight train, consisting of 19 cars loaded with coal, and going west, collided with defendant's train, crushing through the sleeping car "Matterhorn," in which plaintiff was asleep, cutting the car into two parts, between the center and the north end, killing two of the passengers and wounding several, and inflicting the injuries to plaintiff for which this action is brought.
The petition seeks to recover the damages plaintiff has suffered by defendant's failure, through negligence, to safely carry plaintiff from Chicago to Kansas City, as it had, as a common carrier, agreed to do, in that it
The defendant in its answer admits that it was a common carrier as alleged, and pleads that, under the laws of the state of Illinois in force then, all railroads were made public highways, among others the said Wabash Railroad Company; that as such they were required to maintain depots for the transaction of their business by the laws of the state of Illinois, and that all trains approaching the crossing of another railroad on the same level were required to come to a full stop before reaching the same, within 800 feet therefrom, and the duty of the engineer was to see before he crossed that the way was clear, and that the train could safely proceed; that a railroad could obstruct any public...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grand Trunk & W. Ry. Co. v. City of South Bend
...that a railroad is in some sense a public highway, a means of rapid travel. Toledo, etc., Co. v. Pence, 68 Ill. 524;Clark v. Chicago, etc., Co., 127 Mo. 197, 29 S. W. 1013;Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147, 59 Am. Dec. 759;Davidson v. Ramsey County, 18 Minn. 482 (Gil. 432); Beekman v. S......
-
Charlton v. Lovelace, 38480.
...225 S.W. 1084, 213 Mo. App. 515; Magrane v. St. Louis & S.R.W. Co., 81 S.W. 1158, 183 Mo. 119; Clark v. Chicago & A.R. Co., 29 S.W. 113, 127 Mo. 197; Olson v. Citizens Ry. Co., 54 S.W. 470, 152 Mo. 426; Kinchlow v. Kansas City, K.V. & W. Ry. Co., 264 S.W. 416; Scheipers v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., ......
-
Fowlkes v. Fleming
...645; Bell v. Railroad, 125 Mo. App. 660; Nelson v. Stove Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 920; Goodloe v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 120 Mo. App. 194; Clark v. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 197; Och v. Ry. Co., 130 Mo. 27; Hipsley v. Ry. Co., 88 Mo. 348; Furnish v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 102 Mo. 438; Dougherty v. Railroad, 97 Mo. 64......
-
Turner v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co.
... ... 45 C.J. 1211; Preslar v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co., 185 S.W. 67; Chicago & E.I. Railroad Co. v. Reilly, 72 N.E. 454; M-K-T Railroad Co. v. Sowards, 25 Pac. (2d) 646; Case v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 21 N.W. 30; Thompson v ... Clark v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 197, 29 S.W. 1013; Dempsey v. Horton, 337 Mo. 379, 84 S.W. (2d) 621. (2) It was error to permit plaintiff's witness ... ...