Hardman v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1925
• Docket Number: No. 3762.,3762.
• Parties: HARDMAN v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

274 S.W. 493

HARDMAN v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO.

No. 3762.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 1, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Howell County; E. P. Doris, Judge.

Action by W. A. Hardman against the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, and W. J. Orr, of Springfield, for appellant.

B. L. Rinehart, of West Plains, for respondent.

COX, P. J.

Action for damages, based on a collision of one of defendant's engines with an automobile belonging to plaintiff. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant appealed.

The automobile was a truck used in hauling to and from defendant's depot at Willow Springs. The driver of this truck had taken some empty cream cans and some butter to the depot and unloaded, and, as he attempted to return, the truck was struck by an engine of defendant and injured. The trial court held the driver of the truck guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and submitted the case on the humanitarian doctrine only. The only question here is whether there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury on that theory. The evidence shows that there is a crossing over defendant's track where parties drive into the depot platform and load and unload freight. The track on which this collision occurred is some 10 or 12 feet from the depot, and a person when at the platform where freight is loaded and unloaded is in such a position that the depot obstructs his view, and he cannot see an engine approaching from the east, as this engine did. In order to see, he must pass toward the track far enough that the depot will not obstruct his vision. The driver of this truck was entirely familiar with all the surroundings, and had been accustomed to drive in, and had done so for some time prior to this collision. On the day of this accident, he drove his truck in, backed up to the platform at the depot, unloaded his freight and started back. When he reached the point where he could see down the track, he saw the engine coming, and tried to stop, reverse his engine, and back up, but was struck before he could do so. The evidence for plaintiff shows that the lookout of the engineer was on the opposite side, and he could not see the truck. The fireman on the engine was where he could see, and he did see the truck in time to have warned the engineer and give him a chance to have stopped the engine and have avoided the accident if he had...