Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1889
• Citation: 97 Mo. 647,11 S.W. 251
• Parties: DOUGHERTY v. MISSOURI R. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 251

97 Mo. 647

DOUGHERTY v. MISSOURI R. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 18, 1889.

CARRIERS — INJURIES TO PASSENGERS.

1. In an action by a passenger on a street railway for injuries sustained from the negligent and sudden starting of a street-car, an instruction that in the transportation of passengers the defendant must exercise the utmost human foresight, skill, and care states the degree of care required of the defendant too broadly.¹

2. In such action, an instruction that, although the jury may believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence at the time of the injury, yet if they should find that such negligence did not contribute to or cause the injury, or that defendant was negligent, and that if it had not been for such negligence on the part of the defendant such injury would not have happened, notwithstanding the negligence of the plaintiff, then the jury should find for the plaintiff, is erroneous, as allowing the plaintiff to recover regardless of the fact that his negligence might have contributed to the injury.

On rehearing.

Action by Christopher Dougherty against the Missouri Railroad Company, to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff while a passenger on the street railway of the defendant, and alleged to have been caused by the negligent and sudden starting of the street-car.

The instructions referred to in the opinion are as follows: "(3) The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that, at the time of the event in controversy in this action, the defendant was engaged in the business of operating a street railroad for the transportation of passengers in the city of St. Louis, that at said time the plaintiff was received on one of its cars as a passenger to be transported thereon, and that while in said car for said purpose he was injured by a sudden and violent starting of the car, then the burden of proof rests upon the defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that said injury was caused by something not under the control of defendant, and not from the use of unsuitable or skittish horses, or careless or unskillful driving or management of said car, and that by the exercise of the utmost human foresight, knowledge, skill, and care such injury could not have been prevented by defendant, its agents or servants; and, unless the jury so believe, they will find for the plaintiff." "(10) The court instructs the jury that although they may believe from the...