Hennessy v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1903
• Citation: 73 S.W. 162,173 Mo. 86
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: HENNESSY v. ST. LOUIS & S. RY. CO.

73 S.W. 162

173 Mo. 86

HENNESSY v. ST. LOUIS & S. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 18, 1903.

CARRIERS — COLLISION — INJURIES — EXCESSIVE DAMAGES — NEGLIGENCE — INSTRUCTIONS.

1. In a collision between electric cars, plaintiff was injured — sustaining a complete inguinal hernia, or rupture of the testicles — was compelled to wear a truss, and suffered great pain. Held, that a verdict of $3,900 was not excessive.

2. Plaintiff was injured in a collision between an electric car on which he was riding and a car on which the president of defendant company was riding. The court refused to instruct that if, shortly before the president's car reached a certain point, its motorman asked the motorman on a passing south-bound car if the latter car was the last car out, and was answered that there was one more car, and defendant's president understood the answer to be that the car was the last one out, and, relying on said advice, gave orders for his car to proceed, and if the collision was due solely to the president's misunderstanding of such answer, and such misunderstanding was purely accidental, and did not constitute negligence, the verdict must be for defendant. Held properly refused, where the president himself testified that he knew there were nine cars on the road, and that only eight had passed.

3. The instruction was properly refused where the president testified that it was the duty of the manager of the road to regulate the running of the cars, and to notify motormen of the cars that were on the road.

4. The instruction was properly refused where the collision occurred on ladies' day at certain races, when the cars were crowded, and all the cars were needed to handle the crowds.

5. The instruction was properly refused; it appearing that the president's car was not a regular car on that part of the road, and there being nothing in the record to show that the manager or any motorman knew it was coming out.

6. As the president knew there was another car out, which would come in some time that evening, it was negligence for him to run his private car at a high rate of speed around a curve where a coming car could not be seen, or to run it over that part of the road without taking proper precautions to prevent a collision with such incoming car.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Selden P. Spencer, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Daniel S. Hennessy against the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This case is in all its essential features like the case of Malloy against this defendant (No. 10,732; just decided) 73 S. W. 159. The plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's car, and was injured in the same collision that injured Malloy. The pleadings are identical, except as to parties and the extent of the injury. The proofs are the same, except that in this case it appears that before the accident the president's car was on a switch, and that, when a car passed, the motorman on the president's car asked the motorman on the passing car if his was the last car, and he said "Yes." The said motorman on the passing car says he added "that there was one more car out there, but he did not know whether he [the said motorman] would meet it." The president of the defendant...