Guinney v. Southern Electric R. Co.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBrace
CitationGuinney v. Southern Electric R. Co., 67 S.W. 296, 167 Mo. 595 (Mo. 1902)
Decision Date12 March 1902
PartiesGUINNEY v. SOUTHERN ELECTRIC R. CO.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; P. R. Flitcraft, Judge.

Action by Mary Guinney against the Southern Electric Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Virgil Rule and Jesse A. McDonald, for appellant. Lubke & Muench, for respondent.

BRACE, P. J.

This is an action by the widow of Jeremiah Guinney, deceased, to recover the statutory damages of $5,000 for the death of her husband, which resulted from injuries received by him in a collision between a wagon and team being driven by him and one of the cars of the Southern Electric Railroad Company, at the crossing of Sixth and Gratiot streets in the city of St Louis, which occurred on the 11th of February, 1898. The verdict was for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. The cause of action stated in the petition was negligence of the defendant's employés in the management of its car. The answer was a general denial, and a plea of contributory negligence, upon which issue was joined by reply. No question is raised upon the pleadings or the action of the court in the admission or exclusion of evidence. Gratiot street runs east and west, and is about 30 feet wide. Sixth street runs north and south, and upon it is located the defendant's double track. The deceased was an employé of the fire department of said city, and engaged in driving one of the fuel wagons of the department,—a two-horse wagon, about 5 by 12 feet in size, equipped with a gong, and loaded with about 25 bushels of coal. Prior to the collision, in response to a fire alarm, the fire engine and hose reel belonging to the same service with this fuel wagon, going west on Gratiot street, passed over this crossing, and out of sight and hearing therefrom. About 10 or 15 minutes later the deceased, driving the fuel wagon and following after in the same direction, approached this crossing at a rapid rate of speed; one of his horses galloping, the other trotting. At the same time defendant's car, going north on Sixth street, approached the crossing from the south. On the east side of Sixth street there was a board fence, about 12 feet high, extending from the south side of Gratiot street, south along the east side of Sixth street, about 100 feet, which prevented the motorman and those on the car, while traveling that distance toward the crossing, from seeing the approaching wagon and team. But the deceased, from his position on the wagon while traveling the same distance on Gratiot street, could see the trolley and the top of the car on Sixth street approaching the crossing. The wagon and car each proceeded on its way until they collided, somewhere between the center and north line of Gratiot street. By the contract the front wheels of the front truck of the car were thrown from the track and the fender bent, the left hind wheel and tongue of the wagon broken, and the deceased thrown from his seat to the ground, receiving the injuries from which he soon thereafter, on the same day, died. He never checked the speed of his team from the time he came in view of the trolley and the top of the car, but when within a few feet of the car seems to have deflected his team from its course to the right; the horses jumping over the fender and breaking the tongue, the front wheel of the wagon catching in the drawhead, and a hind wheel behind the fender. The evidence of other facts in the case is conflicting. That of the plaintiff tended to prove that the gong on the wagon was being sounded continuously from Broadway, the next street east, until the wagon reached the crossing; that the car was going at a rapid rate of speed, and was not checked until the collision took place; that the bell on the car was not heard by persons in the neighborhood; and that the car struck the wagon. That of the defendant tended to prove that the gong on the wagon was not heard by the motorman, the conductor, or passengers on the train; that the power was thrown off the car about 200 feet south of the crossing, and thereafter the bell was continuously rung,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Mueller v. Schien
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1943
    ... ... Sharp v. Carthage, 319 Mo. 1028, 5 S.W.2d 6; ... Narharski v. Electric Term. Ry., 310 Mo. 227, 274 ... S.W. 1025; Moss v. Wells, 249 S.W. 411. (4) ... Instruction A ... follows: Geisman v. Mo. Edison Elec. Co., 173 Mo ... 654, 73 S.W. 654; Guiney v. Southern Elec. Ry., 167 ... Mo. 595, 67 S.W. 296; Eisenbarth v. Powell Bros. Truck ... Line, 125 S.W.2d ... ...
  • Hogan v. Fleming
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1927
    ... ... Barton v. City of Odessa, 109 Mo.App. 81; Guiney ... v. Southern Elec. Ry. Co., 167 Mo. 595; Evans v ... Foreman, 60 Mo. 453; Sadler v. Peoples, 105 F ... motorman obeyed the city ordinance and the custom by stopping ... the electric street car at the time that he heard, or by ... ordinary attention should have heard, the siren ... ...
  • Green v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 1912
    ...was a fireman going to a fire did not relieve him of the duty the law imposes upon all persons crossing railroad tracks. Guiney v. Railroad, 167 Mo. 604; Railroad v. Baker, 28 So. 87. (3) Plaintiff's first, third and fourth instructions are erroneous because of the use of the words "directl......
  • Green v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 1912
    ...221 Ill. 69, 77 N. E. 577; Flynn v. Louisville Ry. Co., 110 Ky. 662, 62 S. W. 490. The defendant cites us to Guiney v. Southern E. Ry. Co., 167 Mo. 595, 67 S. W. 296, as sanctioning a contrary view; but we are not persuaded to so construe it. In that case, our Supreme Court did nothing more......
  • Get Started for Free