Columbia Taxicab Co. v. Roemmich

• Decision Date: 04 February 1919
• Docket Number: No. 15367.,15367.
• Citation: 208 S.W. 859
• Parties: COLUMBIA TAXICAB CO. v. ROEMICH.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

208 S.W. 859

COLUMBIA TAXICAB CO. v. ROEMICH.

No. 15367.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 4, 1919.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Columbia Taxical: Company against Arnold J. Roemmich. lodgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Paeben & Friday, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Guy A. Thompson and Marvin B. Boisseau, both"of St. Louis, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

This cause originated before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff sued the defendant for damages done to one of its automobiles, resulting from a collision alleged to have been due to the negligent and careless driving of defendant's automobile. In the circuit court on appeal a judgment resulted for plaintiff and against the defendant for the full amount sued for, $308.75. Defendant in due course appeals.

As to the pleadings it is sufficient to state that the defendant filed an answer in the nature of a general denial and a counterclaim, which, however, in view of the assignments of error before us, it is not necessary to take into account.

The collision between the two automobiles out of which this cause of action arose occurred between 1:30 and 2 o'clock in the morning of August 20, 1915, on what is known as the Grand Avenue bridge in the city of St. Louis. A heavy rain was falling, and the streets were wet and slippery. According to the testimony of plaintiff's chauffeur, he was driving a taxicab belonging to the plaintiff company south on the west side of Grand avenue, when, at the point where the approach to the Grand Avenue bridge begins, "he saw headlights coming across the bridge, on the west side of the bridge, coming, north; these lights kept on coming straight across, and he expected them to turn out, but they did not, but came straight toward him, and as they got right onto him he turned to the left, trying to avoid the car, which crashed into him and turned him around, and as he slid over to the opposite side of the bridge his car was struck from behind by another automobile;" that when he started up the approach of the bridge he was driving the taxicab at about 12 to 14 miles leer hour; that defendant's car came onto the bridge from the south end thereof, going north, and was traveling on the west side of the bridge and seemed to be running in the south-bound car tracks and about 3 feet from the west line of the curb of the bridge roadway; that as defendant's car approached he expected it to pull over to the east side, and as defendant's car came toward him he slowed down the speed of his taxicab until it was barely moving; that when he saw that defendant did not turn to the east he thereupon steered the taxicab to the east, namely, to the left, to try to avoid defendant's car, but that defendant's car struck the taxicab on the right side near the front thereof. The witness further testified that there were two electric side lights burning on plaintiff's car at the time of the accident; that they were placed about 1½, feet from the roof of the car, and that the lights were over 1½ feet in length; that the accident occurred right at the first span of the north side of the bridge at a point which was about one-third of the distance across the bridge from the beginning of the north end approach thereof.

On cross-examination this witness stated that the bridge was about 1,600 or 1,700 feet in length, and that he saw the lights of the defendant's car at the south end of the bridge as he, the witness, was entering the approach of the bridge at the north end thereof, and that he saw these lights on the west side of the bridge, and that the defendant's car had traversed the distance of two-thirds in the time that the taxicab had covered one-third the distance of ..he bridge; that he bad made no attempt to get out of the way until defendant's car was immediately upon him, then he turned to the left.

"Q. And you maintained that position or your original position, on the west side of the bridge, notwithstanding this car was coming directly at you at a speed greater than you were traveling? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. And you made no attempt to get out of the way until the car was immediately upon you; is that right? A. Why, I couldn't. Q. But you didn't do it until the car was about to strike you; is that right? A. No; I didn't have any right on the other side. Q. Just because you thought that you were on the right side, and the other man on the wrong side, you permitted that car to bear down upon you and strike your car, didn't you? A. Couldn't do anything else."

William Eller testified for the plaintiff that he was one of the passengers in the taxicab at the time of the collision; that when the car was on the bridge, proceeding south, being driven along the west side thereof, he saw the headlights of a machine, approaching from the south, being driven along the west side of the bridge, being the same side that the taxicab was being driver; that the car came directly toward them; that a collision occurred which knocked the taxicab across the bridge roadway and almost to the other side thereof.

John T. McCaffrey testified for plaintiff that he was a passenger in the taxicab; that at the time of the collision it was moving along at an ordinary rate of speed; that they were on the west side of the bridge, going south; that he saw the lights of the automobile approaching; that the car came directly toward the taxicab; that the chauffeur of the taxicab "kind of turned his car out" as the machines got closer together, and the defendant's machine struck the taxicab head-on; that the taxicab was turned or pushed to about the center of the bridge, and as it stopped a second car came along and struck it.

Two other witnesses testified for plaintiff about the same as the two preceding witnesses. There was testimony as to the damage that was done to the taxicab and the cost of the repairs therefor, and testimony as to the number of days plaintiff lost the use of the taxicab by reason of the repairs made necessary by the accident, and what was the reasonable value for the loss of the use of the car.

The plaintiff offered in evidence section 1327 of the Revised Code of 1912 of the City of St. Louis, which requires vehicles to keep "as near the right-hand curb as possible."

At the conclusion of plaintiff's case the defendant offered an...