Corcoran v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1891
• Citation: 105 Mo. 399,16 S.W. 411
• Parties: CORCORAN v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

16 S.W. 411

105 Mo. 399

CORCORAN v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 19, 1891.

ACCIDENT AT RAILROAD CROSSING — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

The duties of a police officer required him to cross the yard of a railroad company at night. He found the street obstructed by cars. There was no other crossing within three blocks. He waited from 15 to 30 minutes, and then walked around the cars, but found that on the next track the crossing was obstructed by coal-cars. No engine was seen attached to the cars, and they had not been moved for a half hour. Two or three engines were at work in the yards. There was an electric light at the crossing. The policeman climbed over one of the cars, and, as he was getting down, a sudden movement of the cars threw him to the ground, and dislocated his shoulder. Held, that he was guilty of contributory negligence, and there was no error in directing a verdict for the railroad company.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

B. Pike, for appellant. A. & J. F. Lee. for respondent.

MACFARLANE, J.

The action is for damages for personal injuries, caused, as is alleged, by the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff had judgment in the circuit court of St. Louis city for $7,500, and defendant appealed. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that upon the pleadings and evidence in the case the verdict should be for defendant. This the court refused to do. The proper determination of the case depends upon the propriety of the court's ruling in refusing this instruction. It becomes necessary, therefore, to set out somewhat at length the pleading and evidence. The petition charges that on the 12th day of October, 1886, defendant obstructed Carroll street, a public highway in the city of St. Louis, by standing across it for the period of half an hour a long train of coal-cars. That plaintiff was a police officer in said city, and his duties as such required him to go west on said street to a point beyond said obstruction, which he could not do without crossing upon said cars. That he attempted to cross over said cars while they were standing still, but while on top of the cars defendant caused them "to be moved suddenly and violently, and without notice, signal, or warning, and thereby plaintiff was violently thrown to the ground from one of said cars upon which he was standing in his efforts to cross," whereby he was severely injured. The petition then charges that the injuries so received were caused by the negligence of defendant in failing to observe the requirements of a certain ordinance of the city forbidding railroad companies to obstruct any street crossing by standing cars thereon longer than five minutes; requiring that, "when moving, the bell on the engine shall be constantly sounded;" prohibiting any freight train to be moved "without it be well manned with experienced brakemen at their posts, who shall be so stationed as to see the danger signals, and hear the signals from the engine;" and requiring them to "station at each cross or intersecting improved street a watchman, who shall display at the crossing of cars in the day-time a red flag, and at night-time a red light." Defendant's answer was a general denial, and a general plea of contributory negligence.

The evidence shows that defendant's yards in the city of St. Louis extend north and south adjacent to the levee on the river front; that 22 or 23 tracks extend across the yards north and south; that Carroll street is a public, macadamized street, running east and west, across this yard, to the river on the east; that no other public street crosses the yard within three blocks north or south of Carroll; that on the night of October 12, 1886, about 10 o'clock, plaintiff and a companion, both of whom were police officers of the city of St. Louis, in the proper discharge of their duties were required to go from the river east to a part of the city west of defendant's yards. The most direct and practical route was over Carroll street. When they came to the east side of the yards they discovered that the street was obstructed by some box-cars. They waited there from 15 minutes to half an hour, and the cars were not moved. They then went west on the street until they came to these cars, and walked to the north around them. They then found that a long line of flat coal-cars, coupled together into a train, also stood across Carroll street. The end of this train could not be seen north or south of the street. The yard at the time was full of cars, and two or three engines were at work switching cars on the tracks. No engine was seen attached to the train of coal-cars, nor had they been moved for half an hour. There was an electric light on this street crossing, giving a good light. On the west side of these coal-cars a platform or running board about 18 inches wide extends across the ends. Without stopping, when coming to this obstruction, plaintiff's companion got upon this...