Goebel v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 04 January 1916
• Docket Number: No. 14324.,14324.
• Citation: 181 S.W. 1051
• Parties: GOEBEL v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

181 S.W. 1051

GOEBEL v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.

No. 14324.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 4, 1916.

Rehearing Denied January 26, 1916.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Geo. C. Hitchcock, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Christian Goebel against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Boyle & Priest and R. E. Blodgett, all of St. Louis, for appellant. Otto F. Karbe and L. L. Leonard, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

About half past twelve, or possibly a little later, on the night of October 7th, 1911, plaintiff and a friend were standing on the northeast corner of Locust street and Jefferson avenue, in the city of St. Louis, plaintiff waiting to take a car to go to his home in the south part of the city. He saw a car of defendant coming along Jefferson avenue from the north, going south, in the direction in which he wished to go and ran from the northwest corner of Jefferson and Locust, and directly into the street intending to board the car. He says he signaled the motorman to stop but the car did not come to a full stop, although its speed was checked up so that it was going at the rate of from 3 to 4 miles an hour. The car was then north of and near the Locust street crossing on Jefferson avenue, and when he signaled it about 10 feet north of him. The corner was well lighted at the time by artificial lights, and plaintiff testified that he saw the motorman plainly; that when he (plaintiff) signaled to the motorman, the motorman "slacked up the car" and it was nearly at a stop, going at not to exceed 3 or 4 miles an hour when plaintiff tried to board it. When the car got in front of him, and still to the north of Locust street, he tried to get hold of the handrail with his right hand and was going to get hold of the rail on the front platform of the car with his left hand, and tried to get on the front platform of the car. Just as he got on it, when he had his right foot on the lower step, the car started with a sudden jolt. He lost his grip on the rail with his right hand, tried to hold on with his left hand but slipped with that hand and fell, falling in front of the right hand front wheels of the car, those wheels running over him and crushing his foot, rendering amputation of part of the foot — of the toes of it — necessary. That his injuries were very painful and that he was confined in consequence to the hospital several months and is crippled for life in that foot is not questioned. He became unconscious, was carried to the hospital, operated on and then carried to his own home.

There was testimony to the effect that at this time, under the ordinance of the city, the cars stopped on the far side of the crossing, that is, stopped after they had crossed over an intersecting street, and the side from which plaintiff attempted to get on the car was not a usual stopping place for the admission or debarkation of passengers. There was testimony in the case, however, that other persons beside plaintiff were seen by passengers to be running for the car, some running from the east on Locust street toward Jefferson avenue and running in front of the car, some of them boarding it from the front platform, one of them boarding it from the rear platform, and perhaps others, as was plaintiff, running from the west side of Jefferson avenue and north side of Locust street to board the car. There was also affirmative testimony to the effect that the motorman operating the car saw these persons running for the car and attempting to get on it, and that he slowed up for them. To the contrary the motorman specifically denied that he saw plaintiff at all until after the accident, or knew that he was attempting to get on the car. There was testimony to the effect that while plaintiff was endeavoring to get on the car the motorman threw on the power and started it with a sudden jerk, and it was this sudden jolt or jerk, as plaintiff says, that caused him to lose his hold and fall under the car. There was evidence to the effect that when the power was thrown on just as the car reached the north line of Locust street, its speed, which up to then was from 3 to 4 miles an hour, had been increased to 10 or 12 miles an hour.

On these facts defendant, at the close of plaintiff's evidence and again at the close of all the testimony in the case, demurred and the demurrers being overruled, excepted. At the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury at the instance of plaintiff and defendant. The first instruction given at the instance of plaintiff, was to the effect that if the jury found from the evidence that on the date named plaintiff offered himself as a passenger on the car...