Gibson v. St. Louis

• Decision Date: 23 March 1880
• Citation: 8 Mo.App. 488
• Parties: BENJAMIN J. GIBSON, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY, AND NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

8 Mo.App. 488

BENJAMIN J. GIBSON, Respondent,

v.ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY, AND NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Mar. 23, 1880.

1. The appellate court will not interfere with the action of the trial court in refusing to disturb a verdict, as being against the evidence, where there is any evidence to support it.

2. A verdict may be sustained though it negatives facts sworn to by witnesses who are uncontradicted and unimpeached.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.WELLS H. BLODGETT and PROSSER RAY, for the appellant.

ALEXANDER YOUNG, for the respondent.

HAYDEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The act of negligence charged is, that the engineer and employees managing a locomotive-engine of the defendant, which was standing on its railroad track in a public street of the city of St. Louis, negligently opened one of the escape-valves of the engine, thereby letting the steam and hot water escape at and upon the horses of the plaintiff, which, attached to a carriage, were being driven along the street near where the locomotive was standing. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff tended to show that the train was standing on the track which runs along the levee in St. Louis; that the plaintiff's carriage was being carefully driven along the levee, on the east side of where the train was standing; and that, when the carriage reached a point nearly opposite the engine, the steam came out from the locomotive, shooting out toward the horses--not reaching them, but reaching towards them, as one of the witnesses expresses it. The noise and the sight of the steam frightened the horses, and, the driver losing control, they ran, upset the carriage, and seriously damaged it, thus occasioning the loss. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the engine had been still for ten or twelve minutes, and the engineer watching for a signal to back and couple up the train; that those on the engine let off no steam, and that no steam came from out the cylinders or side of the engine as the team went past; that when the horses were near, the engine, of its own accord, “popped off” from the safety-valve on the top of the dome. The defendant's evidence tended also to show that the upsetting of the carriage was caused by the fault of the driver. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

The defendant asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to evidence, both at the close of the plaintiff's testimony and of the whole...