Gillis v. Singer
Decision Date | 08 October 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 23546.,23546. |
Citation | 86 S.W.2d 352 |
Parties | GILLIS v. SINGER et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Julius R. Nolte, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Lavern Gillis, by Annabelle Gillis, her next friend, against Sylvester Singer, by N. A. Singer, guardian ad litem, the United Service Car Company, and another. From a judgment for plaintiff against the named defendant, the named defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Max Sigoloff, of St. Louis, for appellants.
Roger D. Moore and F. Warner Fischer, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when struck by an automobile driven by defendant Sylvester Singer, who, it is charged, was at the time in the employ of defendant United Service Car Company. Plaintiff, at the time she was struck, was crossing South Thirty-Ninth street, in the 1600 block, in the city of St. Louis. Thirty-Ninth street runs north and south. It is intersected by an alley in the middle of the block, by McRee avenue to the north of the alley, and by Lafayette avenue to the south of the alley. There are two street car tracks on Thirty-Ninth street. Plaintiff at the time of her injury, which occurred on February 4, 1933, was eight years of age. The automobile which struck her was proceeding south on Thirty-Ninth street, and she was crossing the street from east to west.
The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant Daniel Budiselich and in favor of plaintiff against defendants Sylvester Singer and the United Service Car Company for $3,500, and judgment was given accordingly. Defendants Sylvester Singer and United Service Car Company appeal.
At the conclusion of the whole case, defendants separately tendered instructions in the nature of demurrers to the evidence which were by the court refused, and the cause was submitted to the jury by plaintiff's instruction No. 1, predicating a recovery on the theory of negligence on the part of the defendant Singer in operating the automobile at a dangerous rate of speed, in failing to maintain a vigilant watch, in failing to operate the automobile as close to the right-hand side of the street as reasonably practicable, and in failing to give a timely warning of the approach of the automobile by sounding the horn.
For a reversal of the judgment below, defendants urge here that the court erred in refusing their instructions in the nature of demurrers to the evidence and in giving to the jury plaintiff's instruction No. 1. Defendants say that their instructions in the nature of demurrers to the evidence should have been given because there was no evidence to show negligence on the part of defendant Singer resulting in plaintiff's injury, and that instruction No. 1 should not have been given because there is no evidence to support it, and the defendant United Service Car Company further says that its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given because there was no evidence showing the ownership of the automobile and no evidence showing that defendant Singer was in the employ of defendant United Service Car Company, or that at the time of the accident he was acting in the scope of his employment.
It thus becomes necessary to set out the testimony in some detail.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
William Gillis testified, for plaintiff, as follows:
Mrs. Marie Malone testified, for plaintiff, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hildreth v. Key
...were issues for determination by the jury. Ferdente v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 247 S.W.2d 773, 777-778(4); Gillis v. Singer, Mo.App., 86 S.W.2d 352, 357(5). See also Petty v. Henroid, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 688, 689-690(2); Robertson v. Scoggins, Mo.App., 73 S.W.2d 430, What we have wri......
-
National Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti
... ... 238, 119 S.W. 1072; 2 Jones' ... "Commentaries on Evidence" (2 Ed. 1926), sec. 945, ... p. 1748; Werth v. Ollis, 61 Mo.App. 401; Gillis ... v. Singer (Mo. App.), 86 S.W.2d 352. (5) An admission ... against interest relevant to issues on trial is properly ... admissible in ... ...
-
Thomas v. Newman, 76-284
...of proximate cause is for the jury. Wickman v. Lundy, 120 Wash. 69, 206 P. 842 (1922); Nunnelley's Adm'r v. Muth, supra; Gillis v. Singer, 86 S.W.2d 352 (Mo.App., 1935). It must be remembered that the sounding of the horn is designed, not only to warn of the approach of the automobile, but ......
-
Bucks v. Hamill
... ... approach, but also gives warning of danger arising therefrom, ... and affords opportunities to get out of the way. Gillis ... v. Singer, 86 S.W.2d 352. (11) Argument of ... defendant's counsel based upon groundless insinuations ... that plaintiff and those with her ... ...