Clifford v. Pitcairn

• Decision Date: 12 September 1939
• Docket Number: 35575
• Parties: Wilbert Clifford v. N. B. Pitcairn and Frank C. Nicodemus, Receivers of Wabash Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

131 S.W.2d 508

345 Mo. 60

Wilbert Clifford v. N. B. Pitcairn and Frank C. Nicodemus, Receivers of Wabash Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellants

No. 35575

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 12, 1939

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Darius A. Brown Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Homer Hall and Sebree, Sebree & Shook for appellants.

(1) This case is governed by the humanitarian rule applicable to injuries received in railroad yards and under that rule plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Mayfield v. K. C So. Ry. Co., 337 Mo. 79, 85 S.W. 116; Rashall v Railroad Co., 249 Mo. 509, 155 S.W. 246; Degonia v. Railroad Co., 224 Mo. 564, 123 S.W. 807; Crossno v. Term. Railroad Assn., 333 Mo. 733, 62 S.W.2d 1092; Goodwin v. Mo. Pac., 335 Mo. 598, 72 S.W.2d 988; Angelo v. Baldwin, 121 S.W.2d 731; Martin v. Wab. Ry. Co., 325 Mo. 1107, 30 S.W.2d 735; Kirkland v. Bixby, 282 Mo. 462, 222 S.W. 462; Nivert v. Railroad Co., 232 Mo. 641, 135 S.W. 33; Bruce v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 271 S.W. 762. (2) The court erred in overruling the demurrers offered by the defendants including Instruction U. (a) The petition does not state a cause of action under the humanitarian rule. Ridge v. Jones, 335 Mo. 219, 71 S.W.2d 713; Phillips v. Henson, 326 Mo. 283, 30 S.W.2d 1065; Ziegelmeier v. East St. L. & Sub. Ry. Co., 330 Mo. 1013, 51 S.W.2d 1027; Huckleberry v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 324 Mo. 1034, 26 S.W.2d 1027; Lotta v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 117 S.W.2d 296; Edwards v. Term. Railroad Assn., 341 Mo. 235, 108 S.W.2d 140; Woodward v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 316 Mo. 1196, 295 S.W. 98; Authorities under point (1). (b) The evidence is insufficient to authorize a submission of the case to the jury. There was no evidence that plaintiff was actually seen or that there was any rule or custom requiring defendants to keep a lookout. Authorities under points (1) and (2) (a). Plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injury. Bruce v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 271 S.W. 762; Riddell v. Railroad Co., 316 Mo. 968, 292 S.W. 710; Van Dyke v. Railroad Co., 230 Mo. 282, 130 S.W. 1; Smithers v. Barker, 341 Mo. 1017, 111 S.W.2d 47; St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Simpson, 286 U.S. 346; St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Schumacher, 152 U.S. 81; Frees v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 263 U.S. 1. Plaintiff's testimony is contradictory and insufficient to support the verdict. Steele v. K. C. So. Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 97, 175 S.W. 177; Siegel v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 119 S.W.2d 378; Person v. Independence, 114 S.W.2d 179; Hayes v. Kresge Co., 100 S.W.2d 328; Crnic v. Croatian Fraternal Assn. of America, 89 S.W.2d 683; Mulcahay v. Brotherhood of Ry. Trainmen, 79 S.W.2d 765; Lotta v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 117 S.W.2d 302; Weaver v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co., 120 S.W.2d 1110; Ducoulombier v. Thompson, 124 S.W.2d 1105; Wigmore on Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 1017, p. 459. The physical facts defeat recovery. Spiro v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 250; Nugent v. Kauffman Milling Co., 131 Mo. 241; Weaver v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co., 120 S.W.2d 1105; Tate v. Western Union Tel. Co., 339 Mo. 262, 96 S.W.2d 364; Gwaltney v. K. C. So. Ry., 339 Mo. 249, 96 S.W.2d 357; Ducoulombier v. Thompson, 124 S.W.2d 1105. The plaintiff vouched for the credibility of defendants' engineer Blackwell, conductor Tadlock and brakeman McIntosh by taking their depositions and reading them in evidence to prove his case, knowing the contents thereof, and he is bound by all the testimony in the depositions, particularly the parts which were unfavorable to his contention and under that testimony plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Costello v. Pitcairn, 116 S.W.2d 257; Pulitzer v. Chapman, 337 Mo. 320, 85 S.W.2d 400; State v. Hulbert, 299 Mo. 575, 253 S.W. 764; Tate v. Western Union Tel. Co., 339 Mo. 262, 96 S.W.2d 366; 2 Wigmore on Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 1918b, p. 460. (3) The court committed reversible error in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1. (a) Because it authorized a recovery if the jury believed a position of imminent peril was arising and did arise, not that plaintiff was in a position of imminent peril, and it thereby unduly extended the humanitarian doctrine. Buehler v. Festus Merc. Co., 119 S.W.2d 961; Perkins v. Terminal Co., 340 Mo. 868, 102 S.W.2d 915; Davies v. Mann, 10 N. & W. 546, 162 Eng. Reprint 558, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 110; Banks v. Morris & Co., 302 Mo. 254, 257 S.W. 482; Wallace v. St. Joseph Ry., L. & P. Co., 336 Mo. 282, 77 S.W.2d 1011; Taylor v. Kelder, 229 Mo.App. 1117, 88 S.W.2d 436; Ridge v. Jones, 335 Mo. 219, 71 S.W.2d 713; State ex rel. Vulgamott v. Trimble, 300 Mo. 92, 253 S.W. 1014; Smithers v. Barker, 341 Mo. 1017, 111 S.W.2d 47; Crews v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 Mo. 1090, 111 S.W.2d 54; State ex rel. Himmelsbach v. Becker, 337 Mo. 341, 85 S.W.2d 420; Laken v. C., R. I. & P., 229 Mo.App. 461, 78 S.W.2d 481. (b) Because it submitted the humanitarian issue on the theory that there was a duty to discover peril, which was not authorized under the pleadings and evidence in this case and no facts were submitted which would create such duty. Crossno v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 333 Mo. 733, 62 S.W.2d 1092; Goodwin v. Mo. Pac., 335 Mo. 398, 72 S.W.2d 988; Mayfield v. K. C. So., 337 Mo. 79, 85 S.W.2d 116; Rashall v. Railroad Co., 249 Mo. 505, 155 S.W. 246; Degonia v. Railroad Co., 224 Mo. 564, 123 S.W. 807; Bruce v. Mo. Pac., 271 S.W. 762; Martin v. Wab. Ry. Co., 325 Mo. 1107, 30 S.W.2d 735; Haynes v. Bridges Asphalt Pav. Co., 55 S.W.2d 431; Roshel v. Litchfield Ry. Co., 112 S.W.2d 882; Telanus v. Simpson, 321 Mo. 724, 12 S.W.2d 920; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 653, 195 S.W. 722; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 571, 199 S.W. 984; Owens v. McCleary, 313 Mo. 224, 281 S.W. 682; Hall v. Coal & Coke Co., 260 Mo. 351, 168 S.W. 927; Allen v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 294 S.W. 80, 87.

Trusty, Pugh & Trusty and Hogsett, Murray, Trippe, Depping & Houts for respondent.

(1) The merits and the refused peremptory instructions requested by defendant involve all the evidence and every theory of the negligence embodied in plaintiff's petition. Schroeder v. Wells, 310 Mo. 642, 276 S.W. 63; Eversole v. Wabash Railroad, 249 Mo. 542; Elkin v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 335 Mo. 95, 74 S.W.2d 601; Benzel Anishanzlin Byrd v. Mo. Pac. Railroad, 46 S.W.2d 222, 226 Mo.App. 708; Irvin v. Kelting, 46 S.W.2d 926; Klaber v. Royal Exchange, 48 S.W.2d 68; Weeks v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 109 S.W.2d 377; Manson v. May Department Stores Co., 71 S.W. 1081 230 Mo.App. 678; Haseltine v. Smith, 154 Mo. 404; Woodson v. Met. Street Ry., 224 Mo. 685; Finnegan v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 244 Mo. 608; Schrader v. Burkel, 260 S.W. 63; Yoakum v. Lusk, 223 S.W. 56. (a) In their assignments of error in this court appellants are bound by their theory of the case at the trial. Holzemer v. Railway Co., 261 Mo. 400; Ellis v. Ry. Co., 234 Mo. 676; Tranbarger v. Railroad Co., 250 Mo. 58; Phillips v. Railroad Co., 226 S.W. 863; Coleman v. Rightmyer, 285 S.W. 405; Cole v. Ry. Co., 332 Mo. 1010, 61 S.W.2d 334; Johnson v. Ry. Co., 334 Mo. 35, 64 S.W.2d 674; Crews v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 Mo. 1090, 111 S.W.2d 58. (2) The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendants. (a) The petition states a case under the humanitarian rule. It would be sufficient after verdict if it did not do so. Clark v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 111 S.W.2d 171; Lynch v. Baldwin, 117 S.W.2d 274; Luikhart v. Miller, 48 S.W.2d 867; Ilgenfritz v. Mo. P. & L. Co., 340 Mo. 648, 101 S.W.2d 736; Crews v. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 Mo. 1090, 111 S.W.2d 58; Phillips v. Railroad Co., 226 S.W. 863; Beuhler v. Mercantile Co., 119 S.W.2d 961; Perkins v. Term. Railroad Co., 30 Mo. 868, 102 S.W.2d 915. (b) The evidence made a humanitarian case. Defendants' answer admitted and the evidence abundantly showed a duty on the part of the Wabash crew to keep a lookout approaching transfer switch on the Wabash transfer lead for the purpose of discoverable peril under the humanitarian doctrine. Goodwin v. Mo. Pac., 335 Mo. 398, 72 S.W.2d 994; Woodward v. Mo. Pac., 295 S.W. 101; Hughes v. Miss. River & D. T. Ry., 309 Mo. 560, 276 S.W. 709; Crockett v. K. C. Ry., 243 S.W. 906; Lynch v. Railroad Co., 208 Mo. 24; Allen v. Purvis, 30 S.W.2d 200; Stottle v. Railroad Co., 321 Mo. 1196; Mayfield v. K. C. Southern, 337 Mo. 79, 85 S.W.2d 116; Crews v. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 Mo. 1090, 111 S.W.2d 58; Phillips v. Railroad Co., 226 S.W. 863. There was sufficient and abundant evidence authorizing recovery under the humanitarian doctrine for negligent failure of the Wabash crew to stop the Wabash train in the clear and avert the collision and plaintiff's injury, after it could have discovered the imminent peril of the collision and the injury to plaintiff by the maintenance of the required lookout. State ex rel. K. C. P. S. Co. v. Shain, 124 S.W.2d 1099; Kame v. Railroad Co., 254 Mo. 196; Huckleberry v. Mo. Pac., 324 Mo. 1034, 26 S.W.2d 984; Clarke v. Jackson, 116 S.W.2d 124; Sugarwater v. Fleming, 316 Mo. 752, 293 S.W. 111; Dutton v. Terminal Ry., 316 Mo. 987, 292 S.W. 718; Smithers v. Barker, 341 Mo. 1017; Borgstede v. Waldbauer, 237 Mo. 1205, 88 S.W.2d 377; Hornbuckle v. McCarty, 295 Mo. 162; Heyford v. Spitzausky, 200 S.W. 126; Gann v. Rock Island, 319 Mo. 228, 6 S.W.2d 44; State ex rel. Baldwin v. Shain, 125 S.W.2d 44. (c) Plaintiff also made a case for the jury on primary negligence, for negligence of the Wabash crew in going beyond clearance and fouling the Alton lead when the switch was lined for the Alton and the switch light was red and against the Wabash. Harrington v. Dunham, 273 Mo. 424; Sugarwater v. Fleming, 316 Mo. 753. (3) The court did not commit reversible error in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1. Ellis v. Railroad Co., 234 Mo. 676. (a) The instruction sufficiently predicated humanitarian negligence on imminent peril, and appellants could not complain...