Dings v. Pullman Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1913
• Citation: 171 Mo. App. 643,154 S.W. 446
• Parties: DINGS v. PULLMAN CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

154 S.W. 446

171 Mo. App. 643

DINGS v. PULLMAN CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 1, 1913.

1. CARRIERS (§ 413) — SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES — LIABILITY FOR PASSENGERS' EFFECTS.

A sleeping car company does not accept the effects of its passengers as a bailee, nor does it undertake to maintain a place where accommodation is furnished for the safety of its patrons' property like an innkeeper, and hence does not assume the exceptional liability of an insurer which the law imposes upon common carriers of goods or innkeepers because of their public calling; its duty being merely to use due care to protect their passengers' effects.

2. CARRIERS (§ 417) — SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES — LIABILITY — LOSS OF LUGGAGE.

Mere loss of luggage taken by a passenger into a sleeping car does not make out even a prima facie case of liability against the sleeping car company.

3. CARRIERS (§ 413) — SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES — DUTY TO PASSENGERS.

A sleeping car company must use reasonable care to maintain a vigilant watch by competent persons for the safety of passengers' effects left in a car.

4. CARRIERS (§ 413) — SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES — DUTY TO PASSENGERS.

On a train stopping at a meal station, the sleeping car company discharged its duty to protect the effects of passengers left in the car by locking the rear door of the car, by keeping the windows closed, and by the conductor standing guard at the forward door.

5. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1011) — REVIEW — FINDINGS — CONCLUSIVENESS.

Where the evidence on an issue of negligence is such that different minds might disagree, the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William M. Kinsey, Judge.

Action by W. W. Dings against the Pullman Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

McPheeters & Wood and Zachritz & Zachritz, all of St. Louis, for appellant. Lehmann & Lehmann, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit for damages alleged to have accrued as a result of defendant's negligence. The finding and judgment were for defendant, and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal.

Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's sleeping car en route to California and lost his overcoat, said to be of the value of $75, in transit. By this suit he seeks to recover the value of the coat and avers that its loss occurred through the omission of defendant to exercise due care toward protecting the coat from theft. But one witness gave testimony in the case, and that was the plaintiff himself. It appears that the train, of which the sleeping car was a part, stopped for the evening meal at about 6 o'clock p. m. at Newton, Kan., where the passengers alighted and went into the dining room of the depot for supper. Plaintiff left his overcoat hanging in his berth in the sleeping car, but it does not appear that he directed the attention of either the Pullman conductor or porter thereto. While eating his supper in the depot dining room, he noticed defendant's porter eating at another table therein. Upon his return to the car he found the overcoat had been taken. From plaintiff's evidence it appears that the Pullman conductor stood watch at the forward end of the car upon the depot platform while the passengers were eating supper, and it is to be inferred that the rear door of the sleeper was locked. There is nothing in the case to suggest that...