Hatchett v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, No. 16674.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBlair
Citation175 S.W. 878
PartiesHATCHETT v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
Docket NumberNo. 16674.
Decision Date01 April 1915
175 S.W. 878
HATCHETT
v.
UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
No. 16674.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
April 1, 1915.
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1915.

[175 S.W. 879]

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. lingo Grimm, Judge.

Action by Alma H. Hatchett against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Boyle & Priest and R. E. Blodgett, all of St. Louis, for appellant. F. C. Sharp and Henry H. Oberschelp, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

BLAIR, J.


Defendant appeals from a judgment for $10,000, for damages for the death of plaintiff's husband, James Hatchett, who is alleged to have been thrown from one of defendant's cars by the violent lurching thereof, resulting from defendant's negligence.

Deceased was 39 years old, in perfect health, held an important and relatively lucrative position with Stix, Baer & Fuller, was a faithful employé, regularly at his post of duty and in line for early promotion, the evidence tends to show.

About 8 p. m., November 5, 1910, Hatchett was a passenger upon a Page avenue car, evidently returning to his home. Near Belt avenue the car line leaves Page avenue and runs west on Etzel avenue. There is evidence there is a steep downgrade westward from the point at which the car line enters Etzel avenue, and that the track is straight. There is a stopping post a short distance west of an alley leading north from Etzel avenue, the first alley on Etzel west of Belt. The conductor upon the car upon which Hatchett was a passenger saw him thereon after the car turned into Etzel avenue. He next saw him lying upon the street. There is evidence tending to show the car was stopped so suddenly as to attract attention; that after Hatchett fell or was thrown off it ran to a point west of the alley above mentioned, and that Hatchett was lying 69 feet east of the alley. The width of the alley does not appear in evidence, though there was a plat offered on the trial, which is not in this record. The conductor testified he did not know which of the three posts west of the alley was the stopping post. He stopped his car near one of them, which he first said was the stopping post, and then qualified his testimony as stated. There is no evidence the car was stopped to take on or discharge passengers. Hatchett was found lying with his head against the granite curbing on the north side of the street, his legs extended toward the southeast, the witnesses say. He was unconscious, bleeding at the mouth and ears, suffering from concussion of the brain, had one clavicle fractured, and had suffered a severe injury upon his right side, the exact location of which injury does not appear. He never regained consciousness, and died the following day.

There was also evidence tending to show that at a point opposite the place where Hatchett was lying the north rail of the track was four or five inches lower than the south rail, and had been in this condition for some days at least; that the Page avenue cars are all of the same type as the car upon which Hatchett was riding; and that previously they frequently had been observed to lurch heavily to the north at the point at which the low rail was. They carried the sign, "Smoking permitted on rear platform." One witness, a physician who reached Hatchett very soon after he was injured, testified his breath showed he had been smoking, and the witness testified he called this to the attention of the conductor at the time. Another witness, in his testimony, referred to the, windows of the Page avenue cars. The conductor testified he saw Hatchett upon the car, and Hatchett told him he was on the car before it crossed Belt avenue. He further testified he did not see Hatchett fall, but did see him "after he was off." His testimony warrants the inference that he saw Hatchett lying in the street before he stopped the car.

There is no direct evidence as to the speed of the car, nor that Hatchett was upon the rear platform thereof, nor did any witness

175 S.W. 880

testify he saw Hatchett thrown from the car, nor was there any eyewitness testimony as to the movements of the car at the point at which Hatched fell.

Appellant assigns as error: (1) The trial court's refusal to sustain the demurrer offered to the evidence; (2) the admission of evidence regarding the lurching of other cars;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 d5 Abril d5 1929
    ...Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219; Briscoe v. Railroad, 200 Mo. App. 691; Stewart v. Gas Co. (Mo.), 241 S.W. 909; Hatchett v. U. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 878; Burtch v. Wabash, 236 S.W. 338; Lynch v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 1, 21. (5) That the deceased, who, as conductor, had charge of this work train co......
  • Smith v. Public Service Co., No. 28941.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 d2 Novembro d2 1931
    ...v. Ry. Co., 159 Mo. 5; 26 R.C.L. 1075; Patterson v. Ins. Co., 164 Mo. App. 157; Craine v. Street Rys., 246 Mo. 393; Hatchett v. Rys. Co., 175 S.W. 878; Skirvin v. McKamey, 237 S.W. 858; Arel v. Fire Ins. Co., 195 Mo. App. 165; Gunder v. Huggans, 233 Pac. 901; Robenon v. Turner, 268 S.W. 341......
  • Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 30308.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 d6 Dezembro d6 1932
    ...whereas inferences favorable to appellant cannot be availed of on the demurrer. Buesching v. Gas Co., 73 Mo. 219; Hatchett v. U. Rys. Co., 175 S.W. 878. (g) There was direct, positive and substantial evidence that it was customary for the engine crews to give a warning for the protection of......
  • McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co., No. 27144.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 d3 Março d3 1930
    ...(2 Ed.) 258, sec. 41; Buesching v. Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219; Stewart v. Gas Light Co. (Mo.), 241 S.W. 909; Hatchett v. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 878; Lynch v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 1, 21; Rine v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 228; Troll v. Drayage Co., 254 Mo. 332; Souder v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 673; Settle v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 d5 Abril d5 1929
    ...Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219; Briscoe v. Railroad, 200 Mo. App. 691; Stewart v. Gas Co. (Mo.), 241 S.W. 909; Hatchett v. U. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 878; Burtch v. Wabash, 236 S.W. 338; Lynch v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 1, 21. (5) That the deceased, who, as conductor, had charge of this work train co......
  • Smith v. Public Service Co., No. 28941.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 d2 Novembro d2 1931
    ...v. Ry. Co., 159 Mo. 5; 26 R.C.L. 1075; Patterson v. Ins. Co., 164 Mo. App. 157; Craine v. Street Rys., 246 Mo. 393; Hatchett v. Rys. Co., 175 S.W. 878; Skirvin v. McKamey, 237 S.W. 858; Arel v. Fire Ins. Co., 195 Mo. App. 165; Gunder v. Huggans, 233 Pac. 901; Robenon v. Turner, 268 S.W. 341......
  • Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 30308.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 d6 Dezembro d6 1932
    ...whereas inferences favorable to appellant cannot be availed of on the demurrer. Buesching v. Gas Co., 73 Mo. 219; Hatchett v. U. Rys. Co., 175 S.W. 878. (g) There was direct, positive and substantial evidence that it was customary for the engine crews to give a warning for the protection of......
  • McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co., No. 27144.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 d3 Março d3 1930
    ...(2 Ed.) 258, sec. 41; Buesching v. Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219; Stewart v. Gas Light Co. (Mo.), 241 S.W. 909; Hatchett v. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 878; Lynch v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 1, 21; Rine v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 228; Troll v. Drayage Co., 254 Mo. 332; Souder v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 673; Settle v......
  • 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