Francis v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 September 1935
• Docket Number: No. 23290.,23290.
• Parties: FRANCIS v. MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSP. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

85 S.W.2d 915

FRANCIS v. MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSP. CO.

No. 23290.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

September 13, 1935.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by Walter E. Francis against Missouri Pacific Transportation Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Wayne Ely and Tom Ely, Jr., both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Eagleton, Waechter & Yost and Roberts P. Elam, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

HOSTETTER, Presiding Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff and for injuries to his automobile, a Ford sedan, and for injuries to his wife, by reason of a collision between his automobile and the defendant's bus, which occurred on the first day of January, 1932, at about 6:45 p. m. at or near the western end of a narrow bridge over the Bourboise river on highway No. 50, near Union, Mo.

Plaintiff, who was accompanied by his wife, was driving in an eastwardly direction, and the bus was being driven in a westerly direction.

The amended petition set out divers grounds of negligence, but the cause went to the jury solely on the humanitarian doctrine.

The answer contained a general denial, and also a plea of contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff, and the reply was a general denial.

The bridge in question was 196 feet long and 15 feet wide, and the pavement on the bridge was about 12½ feet wide and the highway pavement leading to each end of the bridge was 18 feet wide. The defendant's motorbus was between 7 and 8 feet wide and had a capacity of 21 passengers. The motorbus could not be driven westwardly across the bridge and be kept to the right of the center of the roadway on the bridge, but, by reason of the narrowness of the bridge, would encroach to some extent on the south half of the roadway; it was equipped with four-wheel booster brakes, and while going at various speeds could be safely stopped under the circumstances there, in distances in accordance with the following table:

                Speed of Bus        Distance Required
                                         to Stop
                20 miles per hour    15 to 20 feet
                25 miles per hour    25 feet
                30 miles per hour    32 feet
                35 miles per hour    40 feet
                45 miles per hour    50 to 60 feet
                

The driver of defendant's bus first saw the headlights of plaintiff's automobile when the bus was about 30 feet east of the east end of the bridge and the plaintiff first saw the headlights of the bus when the bus was about 30 or 40 feet east of the east end of the bridge, and both drivers were able to see each other thereafter, and both were well acquainted with that particular bridge.

The left front, front, right rear, and rear portions of plaintiff's automobile were damaged by the collision, and plaintiff and his wife were thrown out of their automobile onto the pavement, and both sustained injuries.

Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that he first saw the headlights of the bus when his automobile was 35 or 40 feet west of the west end of the bridge; that as he approached the bridge he slowed down his speed, and after he reached the west end of the bridge he first realized that the vehicle was a bus; that he then stopped his automobile to the right and south of the center line of the roadway on the bridge at a point somewhere between 12 and 40 feet east of the west end of the bridge, and that at that time the bus was 75 feet away from his automobile and moving at the rate of 35 or 40 miles an hour, and continued on without slackening its speed until it collided with the front of plaintiff's still automobile; that the collision threw plaintiff's automobile back westwardly toward the west end of the bridge with the back of the automobile against the south bannister of the bridge and the front swung around so as to face north; that his automobile finally came to a stop in this position at about 8 feet east of the west end of the bridge after being knocked back westwardly about 25 or 30 feet; that the bus continued on after colliding with plaintiff's automobile and knocking it backwardly and damaging the right front fender; that when the two vehicles finally came to a stop the bus was astraddle the center line of the roadway with its left wheels a foot or a foot and a half to the south of the center line of the roadway and its right side near the north railing of the bridge; that the bus was about 18 inches wider than half of the roadway on the bridge; that at no time prior to the moment the bus ran into plaintiff's automobile did his automobile run into or come into contact with any portion of the bridge other than the roadway.

Plaintiff's wife's testimony was in accord with his own testimony.

The testimony adduced on behalf of defendant was in conflict with the plaintiff's testimony and was to the effect that as the bus reached a point about 30 feet east of the east end of the bridge the driver first saw the headlights of plaintiff's car, which was then about 350 feet west of the bridge and about 500 feet from the bus; that the bus was driven across the bridge at about 20 or 25 miles an hour; that when the bus reached a point about 3 feet east of the west end of the bridge it was brought to a stop with the north side of the bus up against the north railing of the bridge; that plaintiff's car had continued eastwardly at a speed of 40 to 45 miles an hour until within 50 feet of the bridge, when it was slowed to about 30 miles an hour, and was from 10 to 25 feet from the bus when the bus stopped, at which time plaintiff's automobile skidded sideways across the road, with its front end to the north, into the railing on the south side of the bridge, the back or rear portion of the automobile first striking the south railing of the bridge and right front wheel and fender of the automobile then striking the left front part of the still bus, and that the bus was standing still and plaintiff's Ford just came up and ran into it.

Defendant's bus driver testified that when he was at the center of the bridge plaintiff's automobile was 125 feet west of him, and while the bus was traveling 95 feet from the center of the bridge to the point where it stopped, 3 feet east of the west end of the bridge, at a speed of 20 to 25 miles an hour and slowed to a stop, plaintiff's automobile traveled only 27 feet to the point of collision and that when he (defendant's driver) was at the center of the bridge he knew that if both he and plaintiff kept going they would both be on the bridge at the same time, and that thereafter he continued driving his bus for a distance of 95 feet without stopping, with plaintiff's automobile coming up on that narrow bridge.

There was evidence on behalf of plaintiff that a bus and automobile could not pass on the bridge if traveling at the usual rate of speed, and some evidence was offered on behalf of defendant to the contrary. The driver of the bus testified that "you couldn't drive your automobile across that bridge and keep it completely to the right of the center of the road on that bridge." The photograph shown in evidence (Defendant's Exhibit 1) showed the bus with its side against the railing of the bridge and its wheels on the opposite side covering the center line of the roadway, and that side of the bus towards its rear projecting an appreciable distance over the other half of the roadway.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the first count in his petition, covering his own injuries and the injuries to his car, in the sum of $1,150, and, on the second count, in favor of plaintiff for damages growing out of injuries to his wife in the sum of $500, making a...