Columbia Taxicab Co. v. Stroh

• Decision Date: 04 November 1919
• Docket Number: No. 15418.,15418.
• Citation: 215 S.W. 748
• Parties: COLUMBIA TAXICAB CO. v. STROH.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

215 S.W. 748

COLUMBIA TAXICAB CO. v. STROH.

No. 15418.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 4, 1919.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Kent Koerner, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Columbia Taxicab Company, a corporation, against J. E. Stroh. Judgment for plaintiff before a justice of the peace, but on appeal to the circuit court plaintiff was nonsuited, his motion to set aside nonsuit overruled, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Guy A. Thompson and Marvin E. Boisseau, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Clarence T. Case, Victor J. Miller, and George L. Stemmler, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, C.

This is an action for damages where ordinance negligence is charged. The case originated before a justice of the peace in the city of St. Louis, by the plaintiff filing a statement before said justice, and at the trial in the justice court the plaintiff obtained judgment for the full amount sued for. Defendant appealed to the circuit court, and upon trial in the circuit court, and after hearing the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant, the court, by its action, forced plaintiff to take an involuntary nonsuit with leave to move to set the same aside. Plaintiff's motion to set aside the nonsuit was overruled and it appealed to this court. The real question then for this court to consider is whether or not the trial court should have permitted this case to go to the jury upon plaintiff's evidence. The statement filed in the justice court, setting forth the plaintiff's cause of action, is as follows:

"Plaintiff states that it is now and was at all times hereinafter mentioned a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri.

"Plaintiff states that on the 30th day of November, 1913, the defendant, by his agents, servants, and employés, was conducting, running, and managing teams and conveyances and engaged more particularly in carrying papers for the Globe-Democrat, and while so engaged on the day aforesaid, about 5:30 o'clock in the morning, while it was still dark, one of the said wagons was going west on Olive street, and as the defendant's vehicle crossed Beaumont on the 2,700 block, a taxicab of the plaintiff, which was going in the same direction at the rate of eight miles per hour, ran into and struck the defendant's said wagon, because the driver was unable to see the wagon aforesaid on account of the defendant's failure to properly light the said wagon, as provided by section 1349, which is as follows, to wit:

"`Sec. 1349. Lights Required on Vehicles— When.—Every hackney, carriage, cab or cabriolet when driven on the streets between the hours of sunset and sunrise, shall have "fixed on some conspicuous part, the outer side thereof, two lighted lamps, with plain glass front and sides, on which shall be painted in legible figures, at least one inch long, the registry number thereof. Every automobile when operated upon any public street shall carry, between the hours of sunset and sunrise, at least two lighted lamps, showing white lights visible at least two hundred feet in the direction towards which the automobile is proceeding, and shall also exhibit at least one red light, visible in the reverse direction. All other vehicles while in use on the streets between the hours of sunset and sunrise, shall display, one or more lights or lanterns on the outside of such vehicles, visible front and rear.'

"On account of the negligence and carelessness of defendant aforesaid, the plaintiff's automobile was damaged in the sum of $125.95.

"Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant...