GOODWlN v. Eucas, No. 22175.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtRagland
Citation236 S.W. 50,290 Mo. 673
PartiesGOODWlN v. EUCAS at al.
Docket NumberNo. 22175.
Decision Date19 December 1921
236 S.W. 50
290 Mo. 673
GOODWlN
v.
EUCAS at al.
No. 22175.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
December 19, 1921.

[236 S.W. 51]

Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas; John A. Snider, Judge.

Action by Bruce Goodwin, by next friend, Fred B. Goodwin, against Thomas C. Eugas and another. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

H. E. Alexander and Spredling & Burrough, all of Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

Caruthers & Barks, of Cape Girardeau, and Hines & Hines, of Jackson, for respondents.

RAGLAND, C.


Plaintiff was struck and run over by an automobile owned by defendant Thomas C. Eugas (hereinafter called the defendant) while it was being driven by his minor son along one of the public thoroughfares of the city of Cape Girardeau. This suit is to recover damages in the sum of $25,000 for the resulting personal injury.

Fountain street in the city of Cape Girardeau runs north and south. The next street east of it and paralleling it is Lorimier street. They are intersected by Independence street, a paved street running east and west. The place where the collision occurred was on the south side of Independence street, near the curb and from 75 to 90 feet west of the west line of Lorimier street. From Fountain street east to Lorimier along Independence there is a pronounced descent in the grade. The witnesses in speaking of the rise from Lorimier street west called it a hill.

One of the public schools of the city was located on the south side of Independence street immediately east of its intersection with Fountain street. About 12 o'clock noon on December 7, 1915, a number of children, variously estimated at from 25 to 75, who had been dismissed from this school for the dinner period, were going east on Independence street between Fountain and Lorimier.

236 S.W. 52

Some of them were passing along the sidewalk and parkway on the south side of the street, among them plaintiff, who was then eight years of age. He and a little girl, presumably of about the same age were playing "tag." She was running east on the sidewalk, and he was running after her trying to touch her. When she was within about 75 feet of Lorimier street she suddenly turned and ran diagonally across Independence street, the plaintiff following her at a distance of 9 or 10 feet. He was struck by the automobile at some point between the curb and 5 or 6 feet north of it. The machine came from the west. It was being driven by defendant's 14 year old son, Floyd Eugas, who was hauling some milk cans for his father to a railroad station.

According to plaintiff's evidence the automobile came down the hill at the rate of from 25 or 30 miles an hour. Just before it reached the point of the collision the driver turned his head and waved to some one with his left hand. The next instant the car swerved suddenly to the south, and, after striking plaintiff, skidded 50 or 60 feet. Prior to the collision the car did not slow down, and no signal whatever was given of its approach. Some of his witnesses testified that plaintiff had gone out into the street but a step or two when he stopped and started back to the sidewalk, and that he was caught by the automobile suddenly turning in toward the curb. He himself testified that he was running after the little girl and some 9 or 10 feet from her "when she dodged out into the street right quick"; that he in following her had taken but one or two steps from the curb when he saw the car coming and got back into the gutter; that it looked to him like the car was going to hit the little girl, but it struck him instead.

According to defendant's evidence, the little girl and the plaintiff, following her, suddenly ran from the sidewalk out into the street right In front of the on-coming car. She barely escaped, but he, while still running after her, was struck. The driver testified that plaintiff "jumped right in front of the car." He also testified as follows:

"Q. Tell the jury whether or not he [plaintiff] was running until he was struck? A. He ran out in the street and saw me coming, and he started back, and he stopped, and I hit him.

"Q. You say he stopped? A. Yes; he started to go back, and he didn't have time to go back.

"Q. Did she [the little girl] run in front of your car or not? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Did you make any effort or not to turn the car to miss her? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Which way did you turn it? A. I turned it to the right and no more than I turned it until he jumped in front of the car."

There were some trees in the parkway between the sidewalk and the traveled part of the street. The evidence tends to show that on account of these trees there was not an unobstructed view of the traveled part of the street west from where plaintiff left the sidewalk and went into the street until the curb was passed. For the same reason, no doubt, the driver of a car coming down the hill from the west on Independence street would not have had a clear view of a pedestrian starting to cross the street east of him near Lorimier...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32531.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...S.W. 788; Stanton v. Jones, 59 S.W. (2d) 648; State ex rel. Goessling v. Daues, 314 Mo. 287, 284 S.W. 463; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 684, 236 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 223 S.W. 673; Meily v. Railroad Co., 215 Mo. 597, 114 S.W. 1013; Funk v. Fulton Iron Works, 311 Mo. 77, 277 S.W. 5......
  • Propst v. Capital Mut. Assn., No. 19141.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 9, 1939
    ...Light & Transit Co., 307 Mo. 607-636, 271 S.W. 788; State ex rel. Goessling v. Dawes, 314 Mo. 282-287, 284 S.W. 463; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 223 S.W. 671, 215 Mo. 567, 114 S.W. 1013. An instruction which assumes a controverted fact is clearl......
  • Hosford v. Clark, No. 7999
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 24, 1962
    ...be set aside and the cause remanded for retrial. See particularly Bussey v. Don, Mo., 259 S.W. 791, 793(4). Consult also Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50, 53(2), and Dorlac v. Bueneman, Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 108. It is so ordered. RUARK, P. J., and McDOWELL, J., concur. ------------......
  • Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., No. 29575.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 28, 1931
    ...Mo. 208; Wilkerson v. Thompson, 82 Mo. 317; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1, 25 S.W. 587; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50.] An instruction making a similar assumption was condemned by this court in Schimmelpfenning v. Wells, 24 S.W. (2d) l.c. 160. The......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32531.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...S.W. 788; Stanton v. Jones, 59 S.W. (2d) 648; State ex rel. Goessling v. Daues, 314 Mo. 287, 284 S.W. 463; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 684, 236 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 223 S.W. 673; Meily v. Railroad Co., 215 Mo. 597, 114 S.W. 1013; Funk v. Fulton Iron Works, 311 Mo. 77, 277 S.W. 5......
  • Propst v. Capital Mut. Assn., No. 19141.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 9, 1939
    ...Light & Transit Co., 307 Mo. 607-636, 271 S.W. 788; State ex rel. Goessling v. Dawes, 314 Mo. 282-287, 284 S.W. 463; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 223 S.W. 671, 215 Mo. 567, 114 S.W. 1013. An instruction which assumes a controverted fact is clearl......
  • Hosford v. Clark, No. 7999
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 24, 1962
    ...be set aside and the cause remanded for retrial. See particularly Bussey v. Don, Mo., 259 S.W. 791, 793(4). Consult also Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50, 53(2), and Dorlac v. Bueneman, Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 108. It is so ordered. RUARK, P. J., and McDOWELL, J., concur. ------------......
  • Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., No. 29575.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 28, 1931
    ...Mo. 208; Wilkerson v. Thompson, 82 Mo. 317; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1, 25 S.W. 587; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50.] An instruction making a similar assumption was condemned by this court in Schimmelpfenning v. Wells, 24 S.W. (2d) l.c. 160. The......
  • 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