Dawson v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1903
• Citation: 76 S.W. 689,102 Mo.App. 277
• Parties: DAWSON, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

76 S.W. 689

102 Mo.App. 277

DAWSON, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

November 3, 1903

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. D. D. Fisher, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Boyle Priest & Lehmann and Geo. W. Easley for appellant.

(1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. Colderwood v. North Birmingham, etc., Co., 96 Ala 318, 2 Am. Neg. Cases 84; Harmon v. Railroad, 17 D C. 57, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 296; Outen v. Railroad, 94 Ga. 662, 2 Am. Neg. Cas. 485; Clotworthy v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 220. (2) There was no evidence to justify the giving of the first instruction for the plaintiff. It predicates the finding for the plaintiff upon the fact that the motion of the car "was very slight" when it reached the south side of Chestnut street, and that whilst "said car was so slackened up and was moving slowly," and the plaintiff was alighting, it was "suddenly propelled forward with a greatly accelerated motion," and the plaintiff was thereby thrown and injured. Marr v. Bunker, 92 Mo.App. 651; Day v. Railway, 81 Mo. 471; Nelson Co. v. Shreve, 94 Mo.App. 518.

Wm. R. Gentry for respondent.

(1) The case is similar to the following: Cobb v. Railway, 149 Mo. 135; Grace v. Railway, 156 Mo. 295. (2) The very fact that he was an old man made it the duty of the operatives of the car to be the more careful and to operate the car with that fact in view. Bertram v. Railway, 154 Mo. 639. (3) It has often been held in this State that the mere fact that the plaintiff is injured while attempting to board or leave a slowly-moving car is not negligence per se, but it is a question to be submitted to the jury whether, under all the circumstances in evidence, the plaintiff exercised ordinary care in attempting to board or leave the car. Hansberger v. Railway, 82 Mo.App. 566; Fulks v. Railway, 111 Mo. 335; Duncan v. Railway, 48 Mo.App. 659; Jackson v. Railway, 29 Mo.App. 495; Leslie v. Railway, 88 Mo. 50; Newcomb v. Railway, 69 S.W. 348.

BLAND, P. J. Reyburn and Goode, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BLAND, P. J.

The petition states, in substance, that on October 29, 1902, plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's cars going south on Broadway, in the city of St. Louis; that he boarded the same at Morgan street, and that his destination was Chestnut street, where Broadway crosses the same; that when he handed the conductor his fare (a transfer ticket) he informed him that he wanted to get off at Chestnut street; that it was the custom of defendant to stop its cars on the south side of Chestnut street to allow passengers to get off; that when the car reached the north side of Chestnut street he touched the electric button to warn defendant's motorman and conductor of his intention to get off on the south side of the street; that as the car approached the south side of the street it slowed down as if in response to plaintiff's signal and when the south side of street was reached the motion of the car had become so very slight as to be scarcely perceptible and plaintiff undertook to alight, when the car was suddenly started forward with greatly accelerated speed, whereby plaintiff was thrown and dragged and received permanent injuries.

The answer was a general denial and an allegation that, if plaintiff was injured, it was caused by his own negligence in stepping from a car in rapid motion.

Plaintiff testified that he was a passenger on one of defendant's cars; that when he boarded it at Morgan street and handed the conductor his transfer ticket he informed him that he wanted to get off at Chestnut street; that when the north line of Chestnut street was reached by the car he pushed the electric button and the car slowed down; that he arose from his seat (the rear one in the car) went to the rear platform and attempted to get off, and while he had one foot on the step and was holding on to the handrail, the car started forward with greatly accelerated speed, and with a jerk, and threw him off; that when he let go of the handrail he found himself lying in the street, not able to get up; that he was helped up by Phil Cook, who assisted him across the street to a barber shop and from there he made his way to the office of his real estate agent, who got an ambulance, helped him into it, hauled him to a car line, and assisted him into the car which conveyed him to Wellston, in St. Louis county, within a few miles of his home; that he was lifted from the car into his buggy and driven home to his farm in St. Louis county; that his legs and shoulders were badly bruised and hurt and that he was badly shocked; that he was confined to his bed (propped up, not being able to lie down) for five or six weeks, had pleurisy, spat blood, and suffered great bodily and mental pain; that his legs for a time appeared to be paralyzed, and they had not yet recovered; that he was still lame, unable to walk without the aid of a cane and still suffered bodily pain in his lower limbs; that prior to the injury, he was strong and healthy, able to look after his farm affairs and to do farm work, but had not been able to do anything after the injury; that he was seventy-eight years old (when he testified).

He further testified that he was familiar with the operation of cars in the city of St. Louis; that he owned property in the city and was in the habit of coming to town from his farm in St. Louis county on an average of once a week; that he would drive to Wellston, put up his horses and come to town on a street car.

In respect to the speed of the car, he testified as follows:

"Q. Now tell us about how fast the car was moving as you started to get down? A. I couldn't tell you exactly, because it was moving a tolerably fair speed; and after the jerk, and I was thrown, the car never stopped. . . .

"Q. When you went to get off it was going at the rate of speed, you say, that they go to let young men get off? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Then it was moving more than barely perceptibly? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. It was moving at some rate of speed? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. You have driven a horse which was going three or four miles an hour? A. Yes, sir; I guess it was going about maybe three.

"Q. At the time you went to get off? A. Yes, sir."

Phil Cook, who saw the accident, testified in respect thereto and the speed of the car as follows:

"Q. When it reached the south side of Chestnut street, was the car moving rapidly or slowly? A. Moving at a pretty fair rate of speed.

"Q. Well, tell all you saw, now? A. Well, I will state that I saw Mr. Dawson have hold of the rail. He was dragged along by the car about seven feet, and he finally let go and the car kept on going.

"Q. I will ask you with regard to the movement of the car from the time you first saw it until the time Mr. Dawson was thrown, as to whether there was any change in the rate of speed or not? A. Well, the speed kept on increasing from the time that I saw him until he finally let go. . . .

"Q. Did you notice how fast it was going, whether it slowed down or not? A. It had slowed down until it got to the crossing; it slowed up then, and just about the time he was to get off, it increased its speed again.

"Q. Just about the time he was to get off, I understood you to say, it increased its speed? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And just prior to that it had slowed down? A. Yes, sir. . . .

"Q. Is it not a fact the first you saw of him he was holding by his hand and being dragged? A. I saw him as he was going to step off the step to get off the car, and just as he was about to get off the car the signal was given for the car to go ahead and he was dragged about seven or eight feet, probably."

Plaintiff testified that the shock and bruises caused by his fall caused him a great deal of physical pain and suffering,...