Hudson v. Wabash Western Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1894
• Parties: HUDSON v. WABASH WESTERN RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 S.W. 717

HUDSON v. WABASH WESTERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 25, 1894.

RAILROAD COMPANIES — ACCIDENT AT CROSSING — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

One who attempts to pass between cars at a crossing, knowing that they have stood there longer than is permitted by ordinance, and in so doing puts a foot on either side of the pin head, where they will necessarily be caught if the train were moved, is guilty of contributory negligence. Black, C. J., dissenting.

In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.

Action by one Hudson against the Wabash Western Railway Company. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Smith P. Galt, for appellant. F. W. Lehmann and Geo. S. Grover, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for personal injuries, in which plaintiff was obliged to take a nonsuit, with leave, etc., by reason of the ruling of the trial court in giving an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, at the close of his case. It is the same action reported on a former appeal. 101 Mo. 13, 14 S. W. 15. Plaintiff's petition alleges negligence on the side of defendant in failing to obey certain ordinances of the city of St. Louis, where his injury occurred, and in carelessly operating its cars, etc. The answer contained a general denial, and a plea of contributory negligence, which was put at issue by plaintiff's reply. The cause came to trial before Judge Klein and a jury. Plaintiff introduced certain municipal ordinances of St. Louis, forbidding the moving of locomotives, cars, etc., without constant sounding of the engine bell; forbidding the running of cars moved by steam across or along any improved street without having a watchman at each street crossing, etc.; forbidding the obstruction of any street crossing by a train for more than five minutes; requiring a backing car to have a man stationed on the end furthest from the engine, to give danger signals; and requiring all freight trains moving in the city limits to be manned with experienced brakemen, stationed so as to see the danger signals and hear the signals from the engine. The plaintiff then testified in his own behalf, and the substance of his evidence is as follows: On the 18th day of November, 1887, he was working at Schulenburg & Boeckeler's sawmill, situated east of defendant's railroad tracks. He was one of a gang of men whose duty it was to keep the lumber cleared away from the hands that worked on the top floor of the mill. He lived west of the tracks. At 12 o'clock noon he went home to dinner, passing west on Montgomery street, a public street of St. Louis, which was at the time macadamized on both sides of the railroad tracks. At that time there were no cars standing across Montgomery street, but there were cars standing on each side of that street. At 29 minutes after 12 o'clock, he left his...