Dunn v. Cass Ave. & F. G. Ry. Co.

Decision Date24 June 1889
Citation11 S.W. 1009,98 Mo. 652
PartiesDUNN v. CASS AVE. & F. G. RY. CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

1. Plaintiff jumped off the rear platform of a moving street-car, and started to run across the opposite track, when he was run over by a car moving in the opposite direction. The evidence showed that the driver of that car did not see plaintiff until he ran into the horses, and that the brakes were immediately applied, but the car could not be stopped in time to prevent the accident. Held, that the court properly refused to charge that, though plaintiff did not use ordinary care, he might still recover if the driver, by keeping a vigilant watch, could have seen him and observed his danger in time to stop the car and avoid the accident.

2. The evidence showed that plaintiff got onto the rear platform of defendant's car (moving south) while it was in motion, rode there about two blocks, and then jumped off on the side next the sidewalk, and immediately turned and started to run across the street, where he collided with a car moving north. Held, that the court properly charged that there was no negligence shown in the management of the south-bound car, though it was not stopped to allow plaintiff to alight, that was the proximate cause of the injury.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; AMOS M. THAYER, Judge.

A. R. Taylor, for appellant. Leonard Wilcox and Nathan Frank, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in being run over by one of the defendant's street-cars. The jury found a verdict for the defendant, from the judgment on which the plaintiff appeals. The defendant operates two tracks, — one used for north and the other for south bound cars on Glasgow avenue. On the day of the accident the plaintiff, a boy about nine years of age, while one of the defendant's cars was moving south on the west track, at the usual speed, got upon the rear platform or step, and rode there about two blocks, when, just as a north-bound car, heavily loaded with passengers, was approaching on the east track, and about to pass, the boy jumped off the car he was on, on the west side, moved two or three steps west towards the pavement, turned, ran in a north-east direction across the west track, behind the car moving south, into the team of the car moving north on the east track, on a down grade, which had just passed the south-bound car. He struck the team about the middle or flank of the west horse, was knocked down, and the car passed over his left leg. The only errors assigned are giving an instruction for the defendant that there was no act of negligence shown by the evidence in the management of the defendant's south-bound car that was the proximate cause of the injury, and the refusal to give two instructions asked for the plaintiff. The first point was strongly urged and elaborately argued in the case of Dunn v. Railway Co., 21 Mo. App. 188, upon the identical facts in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Herbert v. Wiggins Ferry Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1904
    ... ... Killian v. Railway, 86 Mo.App. 473; Brash v. St ... Louis, 161 Mo. 433, 61 S.W. 808; Dunn v ... Railway, 98 Mo. 652; Holman v. Railroad, 62 Mo ... 562; Stoneman v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 503 ... ...
  • Frank Horton & Co., Inc. v. Diggs
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 29, 1976
    ...law writ is mentioned in an early Missouri case (Dunn v. Cass Avenue and Fairgrounds Railway Company, 21 Mo.App. 188, aff'd 98 Mo. 652, 11 S.W. 1009 (1886)) but our courts have not considered, hitherto, whether our jurisprudence allows such a remedy. Those sparse decisions which deal with t......
  • Fath v. Tower Grove & LaFayette Railway
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1891
    ... ... unchallenged, though brought before the courts in ... McCarthy v. Railroad, 92 Mo. 536; Dunn v ... Railroad, 98 Mo. 652; Lamb v. Railroad, 33 ... Mo.App. (2) A street railway company has no ... ...
  • Herbert v. Wiggins Ferry Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1904
    ...v. Railroad, 81 Mo. App. 351; Killian v. Railway, 86 Mo. App. 473; Brash v. City of St. Louis, 161 Mo. 433, 61 S. W. 808; Dunn v. Railway, 98 Mo. 652, 11 S. W. 1009; Holman v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 562; Stoneman v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 503. But plaintiff contends that, if the pitmans had been detach......
  • 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