Huger v. Doerr

Decision Date04 May 1943
Docket NumberNo. 26258.,26258.
Citation170 S.W.2d 689
PartiesHUGER v. DOERR et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, City of St. Louis; F. E. Williams, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by Clara Huger against Louis J. Doerr and another for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Leahy, Walther & Hecker, of St. Louis, for appellant Doerr.

Cobbs, Logan, Roos, & Armstrong, of St. Louis, for appellant Dierks.

John C. Kappel, Jr., and Walter S. Berkman, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, on June 15, 1941, as the result of a collision between an automobile driven by defendant Doerr and an automobile driven by defendant Dierks. The collision occurred about 4:30 in the afternoon on what is known as Frisco hill on the old Lemay Ferry Road. Plaintiff was riding as a guest of defendant Doerr in his automobile. Florence Huger, plaintiff's sister, was seated in the front seat beside defendant Doerr. Plaintiff was in the rear seat. She had been suffering from an infection of her right knee since about the middle of September, 1940. An operation had been performed on the knee, and it had become ankylosed. She was seated on the left side of the seat with her right leg on the seat. When the collision occurred she was thrown to the floor of the car and both bones below the knee of the right leg were broken. Defendant Doerr's car was a Lincoln Zephyr. Defendant Dierks was driving a Ford Tudor Sedan.

The old Lemay Ferry Road is a winding road. Its general direction is north and south. It is surfaced with gravel and is fifteen to eighteen feet wide. There is a sharp curve in the road on the Frisco hill. On the occasion of the accident defendant Doerr was driving south and defendant Dierks was driving north. The collision occurred north of the curve. It was a head-on collision. At the time of the collision defendant Doerr's car was traveling up the hill and defendant Dierks' car was traveling down the hill. It was a long steep hill. The curve was on the crest of the hill. There was a growth of brush on the east side of the road which obstructed the view of cars approaching the curve.

The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants for $8,000. There was a remittitur of $2,000, and judgment was given accordingly for $6,000. Defendants appeal.

Florence Huger testified that Doerr was driving up the hill at a moderate rate of speed; that the other car came around, swirled real quick around the bend, at about forty-five miles per hour; that both cars were in the middle of the road; that she screamed; that then her head went through the windshield; that she did not hear any signal whatsoever immediately before the collision; that she did not hear the driver of the other car give any signal or warning; that there was no sound on the part of either; that both cars were in the middle of the road; that Mr. Doerr tried to turn to the right; that the other car had rounded the curve and was in the straightaway when she saw it; that the curve was about 100 to 150 feet ahead from where the cars came together; that the car which came toward them was going much faster than Mr. Doerr's car; that it seemed to sweep around the corner; that it made a very wide turn; that she looked up and saw the other car a hundred feet away; that the curve was about a hundred feet away.

Plaintiff testified that when she first saw the other car from the back seat, both cars were in the same path; that she first saw the other car when it was just on top of the hill; that she couldn't see on what part of the road the other car was being operated immediately before the collision; that the only thing she could remember of it was that she saw the two cars were in the same path and seemed to be in the middle of the road; that she did not hear Mr. Doerr or the operator of the other car sound a horn or give any warning or signal.

Albert Ellegood testified that he arrived at the scene of the accident immediately after it occurred; that the accident happened about 200 feet north of the curve; that both cars were just about in the center of the road.

Defendant Doerr testified that from the bottom of the hill to the crest is 800 or 900 feet; that it is a long steep hill; that as he drove up the hill before he got to the point where the collision happened, he was running slowly, possibly twenty, twenty-five, or thirty, miles an hour at the beginning and gradually decelerating; that the hill was slowing up the motor; that about the time he reached 100 or 120 feet from the curve he shifted into low gear, when he saw the other car swing out over the top of the curve; that the other car kept coming, and he didn't have hardly any speed to move or get further away over to the right, and the other car crashed into his car; that all of his car was to the right of the center of the road; that as the other car came around the corner towards him it swung wide to the left; that it came around at a high speed; that the car seemed to almost carry to the left from the momentum of the speed as it made this curve; that the left front wheel of his car and the left front wheel of the other car came together; that when he saw the other car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hancock v. Crouch
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 9, 1954
    ...made advances for supplies. We are in entire agreement with the legal principle stated in the cases cited by defendants [Huger v. Doerr, Mo.App., 170 S.W.2d 689, 691(2); Stewart v. Wenger, Mo.App., 125 S.W.2d 537, 539(3); Gundelach v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, Mo.Sup., 41 S.W.2d 1......
  • Mullis v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1948
    ...S.W.2d 824, 346 Mo. 395; Hoelzel v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 85 S.W.2d 126, 337 Mo. 61; Alexander v. Hoenshell, 66 S.W.2d 164; Huger v. Doerr, 170 S.W.2d 689. (4) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1, in that said instruction places an undue burden on defendant and is misl......
  • Russell v. Union Elec. Co. of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 1945
    ... ... v. Munger Laundry Co., 329 Mo. 235, 44 S.W.2d 159; ... Gundelach v. Compagnie Generale Translantique (Mo.), ... 41 S.W.2d 1; Huger v. Doerr (Mo. App.), 170 S.W.2d ... 689; Siemens v. St. Louis Electric Terminal R. Co., ... 348 Mo. 682, 155 S.W.2d 130. (b) It submitted issues ... ...
  • State ex rel. Nelson v. Hammett
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1947
    ... ... (5) ... It is broader than, and contradictory to, the evidence ... Gundelach v. Compagnie General Transatlantique, 41 ... S.W.2d 1, 2; Huger v. Doerr et al., 170 S.W.2d 689, ... 691 (Mo. App.). (6) It (Instruction No. 1) authorizes the ... finding of a verdict without requiring the ... ...
  • 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