Cross v. Northern Cent. Coal Co.

Decision Date22 May 1916
Docket NumberNo. 11965.,11965.
Citation186 S.W. 528
PartiesCROSS v. NORTHERN CENT. COAL CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; A. H. Waller, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Gilmore Cross against the Northern Central Coal Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

C. F. Howell, of Centerville, Iowa, and Hunter & Chamier, of Moberly, for appellant. Aubrey R. Hammett, of Moberly, and B. E. Cowherd, of Huntsville, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff was an employé of defendant in its mine and suffered personal injury which he charges was due to defendant's negligence, and he brought this action for damages and recovered judgment in the circuit court.

The evidence discloses that defendant took coal from its mine by means of separate cars drawn by mules over a steel rail track from the face of the coal to a "parting track," where the cars would then be hauled to the foot of the shaft and the coal taken thence to the surface by operating machinery. As the coal receded, defendant's trackmen would lay additional rails; but these rails were of such length that, in order to get closer to the coal, it became necessary to make use of shorter rails, temporarily, until the coal would be removed far enough away to admit other permanent rails. These temporary rails were steel and about eight feet long, and were laid down flat, and the car run out on them and thereby got nearer the coal. When the coal would be gotten far enough away to permit the length of the permanent full length rails, the short temporary rails would be taken away by defendant's men and the full length ones added to the end of the track. These short rails, when not in use, could be laid by the side of the track; but, in the instance in controversy, they were laid on the track, between the rails. Plaintiff's position while driving was standing between the mule and the car, with one foot on the car bumper and the other on the chain. He had no lines and directed the mule by clucking and the commands, "Gee and haw." and he kept the car off of the mule by putting his hand on the mule's rump. The mule stepped on the far end of one of these temporary rails, which caused it to raise at the other and strike the calf of plaintiff's leg, inflicting an ugly wound.

Accepting the evidence in plaintiff's behalf as true, it made a case for the jury, and the circuit court properly refused a peremptory instruction offered by defendant.

Objection is made to remarks of plaintiff's counsel in argument to the jury to the effect that:

"White men have been paying for support of this man (plaintiff) and his family, and, unless you provide for him by your verdict, white men will be forced to continue to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Thompson v. City of Lamar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 29, 1929
    ...196 S.W. 409; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 583; Hall v. Coal Co., 260 Mo. 362; Lukamiski v. Foundries, 162 Mo. App. 639; Cross v. Coal Co., 186 S.W. 528; Ratliff v. Power Co., 203 S.W. 235. (b) An instruction which covers the entire case and directs a verdict for plaintiff must submit ......
  • Davis v. Stamper Co., 37204.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 13, 1941
    ...S.W. 577; Rainier v. Q., O. & K.C. Ry. Co., 271 S.W. 500; Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., 20 S.W. (2d) 911; Cross v. Northern Cent. Coal Co., 186 S.W. 528; Allen v. Autenrieth, 280 S.W. 79; Rytersky v. O'Brien, 335 Mo. 20, 70 S.W. (2d) 538; Buehler v. Festus Mercantile Co., 119 S.W. (2d) 961; P......
  • Thompson v. City of Lamar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 29, 1929
    ...196 S.W. 409; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 583; Hall v. Coal Co., 260 Mo. 362; Lukamiski v. Foundries, 162 Mo.App. 639; Cross v. Coal Co., 186 S.W. 528; Ratliff v. Power Co., 203 S.W. 235. (b) An instruction which covers the entire case and directs a verdict for plaintiff must submit e......
  • Davis v. F. M. Stamper Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 13, 1941
    ......Co., 271 S.W. 500;. Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., 20 S.W.2d 911; Cross. v. Northern Cent. Coal Co., 186 S.W. 528; Allen v. Autenrieth, 280 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT