Horr v. Kansas City Elevated Ry. Co.
Citation | 137 S.W. 1010,156 Mo. App. 651 |
Parties | HORR v. KANSAS CITY ELEVATED RY. CO. |
Decision Date | 29 May 1911 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.
Action by Anna Horr against the Kansas City Elevated Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
John H. Lucas and C. S. Palmer, for appellant. H. J. Latshaw, for respondent.
Action for damages for personal injuries plaintiff alleges were caused by the negligence of defendant. The evidence of plaintiff tends to show that she and her mother-in-law were passengers on an electric street car operated by defendant; that they gave the usual signal for the car to stop at the street corner where they wished to alight; that, as the car slowed down, plaintiff arose and stepped into the rear vestibule, where she stood resting her hand on a horizontal rod attached to the car; and that just before the car reached the stopping place the motorman turned on the power in a way to jerk the car violently forward, and to throw plaintiff out of the vestibule door into the street and injure her. Further, it appears from the evidence of plaintiff, in corroboration of her theory that the car gave a sudden and violent forward lurch, that her mother-in-law, who had just arisen from her seat, was thrown back into the seat and hurt. The evidence of defendant very strongly tends to support its contention that there was no jerk of the car, that the mother-in-law was not thrown back into the seat, and that plaintiff, in saying good-bye to her companion (who was not intending to leave the car at that place), inadvertently stepped off the platform while the car was in motion and fell to the pavement. The cause is before us on the appeal of defendant from a judgment recovered by plaintiff.
The argument of defendant that plaintiff's version of her injury is so contrary to all known rules of physics as to be incredible is clearly not well grounded, and we shall waste no words on it. The injury could have occurred in the way she claims it did, and it was for the jury to say whether or not it did happen in that way. But we agree with counsel for defendant that the court committed prejudicial error in the admission of evidence to which we shall refer. The father-in-law of plaintiff, who was not present at the injury and knew nothing about it until he returned home that evening, was interrogated, over the objections of defendant, about the condition in which he found his wife, plaintiff's companion at the time of her injury. We quote the testimony: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dobson v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co.
... ... App. 63, 68; Lloyd Chemical Co. v. Rag Co., 145 Mo. App. 675, 692; Horr v. Railroad, 156 Mo. App. 651, 655; Hedges v. Hill, 175 Mo. App. 441, l.c ... 's westbound passenger train at the Weller Street crossing in the city of Springfield, Missouri, on December 14, 1926, at about 7:30 A.M ... ...
-
Lloyd v. Alton Railroad Co.
... ... 137; Ritter v. First Natl. Bank, 87 Mo. 574; Horr v. K.C., etc., R. Co., 156 Mo. App. 651, 137 S.W. 1010; Green v. Term ... St. L. Trust Co., 224 Mo. 232, 123 S.W. 835; Williams v. K.C. Elevated R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 489, 131 S.W. 115; Porter v. Stockyards Co., 213 Mo ... constitute a part of such commerce within the meaning of the act." Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Martin, 262 Fed. 241, l.c. 242 ... ...
-
Galentine v. Borglum
... ... AXEL BORGLUM ET AL., APPELLANTS ... No. 19808 ... Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri ... April 7, 1941 ... [150 S.W ... Co., 293 Mo. 235, 245; Hipsley v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 348, 354; Horr v. Ry. Co., 156 Mo. App. 651; Jones v. Hedges (Cal.), 12 Pac. (2d) 111, ... ...
-
Conduitt v. Trenton Gas & Elec. Co.
... ... should have been excluded. Horr v. Ry. Co., 156 ... Mo.App. 651; Gates v. Ry. Co., 44 Mo.App. 493. (5) ... McHugh v. Transit Co., ... 190 Mo. 95; Lindsay v. Kansas City, 195 Mo. 181; ... Smith v. Wilson, 296 S.W. 1041; Northern Pac ... ...