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

Citation175 S.W. 878
Decision Date01 April 1915
Docket NumberNo. 16674.,16674.
PartiesHATCHETT v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

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 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; and (3) the admission of evidence as to the condition of the track.

1. "In passing upon a demurrer to the evidence, the court is required to make every inference of fact in favor of the party offering the evidence, which a jury might, with any degree of propriety, have inferred in his favor," and "is not at liberty, to make inferences of fact in favor of the defendant, to countervail or overthrow either presumptions of law or inferences of fact in favor of the plaintiff; that would clearly be usurping the province of the jury." Buesching v. Gaslight Co., 73 Mo. loc. cit. 231, 39 Am. Rep. 503.

It is also settled law that there is a presumption against suicide, and also there is a presumption, in circumstances like those in this case, that deceased was exercising ordinary care for his own safety; i. e., that he was not guilty of contributory negligence. The same case (73 Mo. loc. cit. 230, 39 Am. Rep. 503) announces these rules also.

In this case, therefore, in examining the ruling upon the demurrer, inferences conflicting with these presumptions are not to be drawn by this court from the evidence, if the facts are susceptible of another reasonable interpretation.

The evidence that Hatchett had been smoking immediately before he was injured, and that the company by the sign mentioned invited smoking on the rear platform, plus the testimony...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Smith v. Public Service Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 17, 1931
    ......Conley v. Ry. Co., 284 S.W. 180; Treadway v. United Railways, 300 Mo. 156; Eppstein v. Ry. Co., 197 Mo. 720; Dincler v. Ry. ...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 ...Yes, sir, and looked it over." .         Louis Rogers, a witness for plaintiff, saw the collision from the front of the ......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ......         Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis". — Hon. William H. Killoren, Judge. .         AFFIRMED. .  \xC2"...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 ...Paul Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 472.] The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a scintilla of evidence in support of ......
  • McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co., 27144.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 5, 1930
    ......v. . ST. LOUIS MERCHANTS BRIDGE TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. . No. 27144. . ...Gotschall's Case, 244 U.S. 66; C.B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559; Meade v. Water & Steam Sup. Co. (Mo.), 300 S.W. 515; ...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. ......
  • Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ......         Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis — Hon. H.A. Hamilton, Judge. .         AFFIRMED. . ...Buesching v. Gas Co., 73 Mo. 219; Hatchett v. U. Rys. Co., 175 S.W. 878. (g) There was direct, positive and ......
  • 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