Jackmann v. St. Louis & H. Ry. Co., No. 14350.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtReynolds
Citation187 S.W. 786
Docket NumberNo. 14350.
Decision Date05 July 1916
PartiesJACKMANN v. ST. LOUIS & H. RY. CO.
187 S.W. 786
JACKMANN
v.
ST. LOUIS & H. RY. CO.
No. 14350.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
July 5, 1916.
Rehearing Denied July 18, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Mary Jackmann against the St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, and Sutton & Huston, of Troy, for appellant. Creech, Penn & Palmer and Frank Howell, all of Troy, and Henry S. Caulfield, of St. Louis, for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.


Action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while a passenger on defendant's road.

The amended petition upon which the case was tried, avers that while plaintiff was a passenger on a passenger train of defendant and seated in a coach of the train, in transit from Troy to Silex, a portion of the train and especially the coach in which plaintiff was being carried as a passenger, was suddenly and violently and forcibly, and without warning to plaintiff, thrown from the track, brought to a sudden, violent and forcible stop and tilted to almost the point of capsizing or turning over; that by reason of this coach being thrown from the track she was violently and forcibly thrown from the seat she was occupying and down between that seat and the seat in front of her, whereby the bones, cartilages, ligaments and muscles of her right leg in and about the knee were injured, and she was bruised and wounded in and about her body and limbs and her nervous system greatly shocked. Charging that the injuries sustained by her were directly and "approximately" (sic) caused by the negligence and want of care on the part of defendant in permitting the train, and especially the coach occupied by plaintiff to leave the track, and that all these acts, omissions and failure and neglect on the part of defendant, directly and proximately contributed to cause plaintiff's injuries, and that the injuries sustained were permanent and that she does now and will continue to suffer great bodily pain and anguish of mind and has thereby been permanently incapacitated to go about and attend to her personal wants, and is permanently injured, crippled and diseased, and has incurred and will incur great expense for treatment, etc., she lays her damages at $15,000, for which she demands judgment.

The answer is a general denial.

A trial before the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $7,500, judgment followed, and defendant, having interposed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, has duly appealed.

187 S.W. 787

Fifteen assignments of error are made, going to the admission and exclusion of testimony and to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Error is also assigned to the action of the court in giving an instruction (No. 1) at the instance of plaintiff.

We do not consider it necessary to notice all of these assignments, but will confine ourselves to a few of them which we consider most material.

Taking up this last assignment, as to error in the first instruction, which was a very long one and practically required the defendant to prove that the train and coaches were not overloaded, that its roadbed, tracks, trains, coaches, equipment and appliances were safe and sound, and that the train and coach were being run and operated by the exercise on the part of defendant with the highest degree of skill, knowledge, foresight, care, inspection and examination of its roadbed, tracks, train, coaches and appliances, it told the jury that unless they found defendant was at the time of the alleged injury to plaintiff, exercising its skill, knowledge and foresight in operating its train, their verdict should be for plaintiff. These particular matters are unnecessary. It is demanded of a railroad company carrying passengers to carry them safely and it is responsible for all injuries to the passengers arising from even the slightest negligence on its part, and when a passenger suffers injuries in consequence of the breaking down or overturning or derailment of the coach in which he is riding, the prima facie presumption arises that such casualty was caused by negligence on the part of the carrier, and the burden is on the latter to repel such presumption and to show that the injury was a result of inevitable accident or some cause which human precaution or foresight could not have averted. See Norris v. St. Louis, I. Mt. & S. Ry. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 S. W. 783; Siegel v. Illinois Central R....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...102 S.W. 578; Landers v. Railroad, 134 Mo. App. 80, 114 S.W. 543; Reeves v. Lutz, 191 Mo. App. 550, 177 S.W. 764; Jackman v. Railroad, 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69; Egan v. United Rys., 227 S.W. 126; Clear v. Van Blarcum, 241 S.W. 81; Wair ......
  • Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., No. 28067.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 13, 1929
    ...Stroud v. Doe Run Lead Co., supra; Schmidt v. Railroad Co., 149 Mo. 283; Wair v. Car & Foundry Co., 285 S.W. 155; Jackmann v. Railway Co., 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 8 S.W. (2d) 77; Rooker v. Railway Co., 206 Mo. App. 79. (a) Jurors are quick to ......
  • McNulty v. Atlas Portland Cement Co., No. 17184.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1923
    ...266 Mo. 505, 178 S. W. 757; Henson v. Kansas City, 277 Mo. 443, 210 S. W. 13; Jackmann v. St. Louis 249 S.W. 735 & H. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 187 S. W. 786; Ruch v. Pryor (Mo. App.) 190 S. W. 1037. The court below recognized the rule and permitted the physicians to testify that the gangrenous co......
  • Diehl v. A. P. Green Fire Brick Co., No. 22876.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1923
    ...was caused by the injury. Castanie v. United R. Co., 249 Mo. 192, 155 S. W. 38, L. R. A. 1915A, 1056; Jackmann v. Railway Co. (Mo. App.) 187 S. W. 786. In the cases cited the fact that the injury was received was disputed, and therefore such testimony was held prejudicial, and we hardly thi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...102 S.W. 578; Landers v. Railroad, 134 Mo. App. 80, 114 S.W. 543; Reeves v. Lutz, 191 Mo. App. 550, 177 S.W. 764; Jackman v. Railroad, 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69; Egan v. United Rys., 227 S.W. 126; Clear v. Van Blarcum, 241 S.W. 81; Wair ......
  • Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., No. 28067.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 13, 1929
    ...Stroud v. Doe Run Lead Co., supra; Schmidt v. Railroad Co., 149 Mo. 283; Wair v. Car & Foundry Co., 285 S.W. 155; Jackmann v. Railway Co., 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 8 S.W. (2d) 77; Rooker v. Railway Co., 206 Mo. App. 79. (a) Jurors are quick to ......
  • McNulty v. Atlas Portland Cement Co., No. 17184.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1923
    ...266 Mo. 505, 178 S. W. 757; Henson v. Kansas City, 277 Mo. 443, 210 S. W. 13; Jackmann v. St. Louis 249 S.W. 735 & H. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 187 S. W. 786; Ruch v. Pryor (Mo. App.) 190 S. W. 1037. The court below recognized the rule and permitted the physicians to testify that the gangrenous co......
  • Diehl v. A. P. Green Fire Brick Co., No. 22876.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1923
    ...was caused by the injury. Castanie v. United R. Co., 249 Mo. 192, 155 S. W. 38, L. R. A. 1915A, 1056; Jackmann v. Railway Co. (Mo. App.) 187 S. W. 786. In the cases cited the fact that the injury was received was disputed, and therefore such testimony was held prejudicial, and we hardly thi......
  • 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