Keep v. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1881
• Citation: 9 F. 625
• Parties: KEEP v. INDIANAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. KEEP v. UNION RAILWAY & TRANSIT CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

9 F. 625

KEEP v. INDIANAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO.

KEEP v. UNION RAILWAY & TRANSIT CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

October 8, 1881

L. B Valliant and Joseph Dickson, for plaintiff.

John T Dye, for I. & St. L.R. Co.

S. M Breckenridge, for U.R. & T. Co.

In the case against the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company the plaintiff alleged in his petition that the defendant was a common carrier of passengers over a railway extending from the city of Indianapolis, in the state of Indiana, to the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri; that for a valuable consideration it contracted to convey him as a passenger carefully and safely from Indianapolis to said city of St. Louis; that while he was in a car of the defendant and was being transported under said contract, the defendant negligently, carelessly, and unskilfully managed and handled said car so that it was violently thrown off the track and overturned, by reason whereof he received serious bodily injuries and suffered greatly, both mentally and physically, and was forced to pay out large sums of money. For all of which he asked damages in the sum of $50,000.

The defendant put in a general denial.

In the case against the Union Railway & Transit Company, of St. Louis, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a common carrier of passengers for hire in cars drawn by steam-power over a certain railway extending from a point in the city of East St. Louis, in the state of Illinois, to a point in the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, over a bridge across the Mississippi river, which railway said defendant controlled and managed; that while the plaintiff was lawfully in a car under the control and management of the defendant, on said railroad in the city of East St. Louis, to be transported as a passenger by defendant to said city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, and while it was the defendant's duty to carry him safely over the road to said city of St. Louis, Missouri, said car was, through the carelessness and unskilfulness of the defendant, thrown from the track of said road; and that in consequence the plaintiff was greatly injured, etc. In this case, also, the plaintiff asked for $50,000 damages.

The defendant denied that it was a common carrier, and also denied all the other material allegations of the petition.

The cases were tried before a jury.

The evidence introduced tended to prove the following facts:

In December, 1878, the plaintiff purchased a through ticket from New York to St. Louis, Missouri, one of the coupons of which called for a passage over the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad.

Before reaching East St. Louis the conductor of the train took up the coupon of plaintiff's ticket covering the ride from Indianapolis to St. Louis, Missouri, and gave plaintiff a ticket or check entitling him to ride from East St. Louis over the bridge and through the tunnel to the place of his destination-- St. Louis, Missouri. There was a contract between the railroad company and the Union Railway & Transit Company by which the last-named company hauled all the cars of the former between St. Louis and East St. Louis, back and forth, for a specified consideration; the track of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company not extending beyond East St. Louis. Trains going westward were delivered to the Union Railway & Transit Company at St. Louis.

The track of the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company crosses the tracks of the Union Railway & Transit Company in East St. Louis about 400 feet north of the Relay depot, at right angles. At this crossing a watchman in the employ of the latter company is constantly stationed. The morning of the accident the train of the

Indianapolis & St. Louis, consisting of one baggage car, two passenger coaches, and a sleeping car, pulled across the track of the Ohio & Mississippi about 10 or 15 feet, and then stopped. At the time this was done a gravel train was standing on the track of the Ohio & Mississippi, waiting to come over the crossing. The engine of this gravel train was on the west end of it, and when the passenger train of the Indianapolis & St. Louis had cleared the crossing the watchman stationed there gave the signal to the gravel train to start. Accordingly that train was put in motion and began approaching the crossing, which was about 150 feet from its first gravel car.

As soon as the passenger train stopped, the Indianapolis & St. Louis engine that had been hauling it was cut off and moved away to the round-house; then the engine of the Union Railway & Transit Company backed up from a switch and attempted to couple on to this passenger train. In doing so it pushed the train backward, so that the rear end of the sleeper in which plaintiff was riding was over the crossing down which the gravel train of the Ohio & Mississippi was moving, and a collision ensued, the sleeping car was thrown over and wrecked, and the plaintiff, who was riding in it as a passenger, received the injuries sued for. At the time of the accident the train had not reached the Relay depot in East St. Louis, where its passengers are discharged for that station.

TREAT, D. J.

(charging jury.) These two cases have been tried at the same time, yet each is a separate case, to be determined on the law and facts applicable thereto, requiring a distinct verdict. The plaintiff alleges that he received a through ticket from New York to St. Louis, one of the coupons of which called for passage over the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad; that said coupon ticket was taken up while he was on said road, by the conductor or some other officer thereof, and in lieu thereof he received a bridge and tunnel ticket to St. Louis; that while in East St. Louis, on the train bound for St. Louis, he was injured through the negligence of the defendant railroad, for which injury he claims damages.

If the said railroad was one of several, whereby a continuous through route from New York to St. Louis was established by an arrangement among themselves, and the defendant railroad was the terminal road at St. Louis, with bridge and terminal arrangements for itself, and if the injury complained of happened at East St.

Louis, through the negligence of the defendant, either acting directly through its immediate employes or acting by other agents with whom it had contracted for intermediate service, then said railroad is liable.

The various matters presented in evidence concerning the relations of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad and the Union Railway & Transit Company call upon the court to determine, as a question of law, whether-- First, the liability of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad ceased, as a common carrier, at or before the time of the accident; and, second, whether the Union railway & Transit Company had at that time imposed upon it, also, the duties of a common carrier.

The duties of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company to the plaintiff as a common carrier, if the facts are as alleged, did not cease until the arrival of the train at St. Louis, although it may have entered into a contract with others to furnish the motive power for hauling the train over the bridge and tunnel. If it was not one of the connecting roads for a through route, its liability ended at the termination of its route.

As to the Union Railway & Transit Company, its liabilities are not those of a common carrier. It had entered into no personal contract with the plaintiff, unless it was one of the common carriers in the through route. But the charter of the latter company does not make it a common carrier as to operations in East St. Louis, nor do any of the contracts produced. Hence, the Union Railway & Transit Company is not liable to the plaintiff for any injury sustained, unless it was guilty of direct negligence or unskilfulness, causing the said injury. If that company did, through such negligence or unskilfulness, cause the injury alleged, it must respond in damages; otherwise, not.

Thus, the jury will decide-- First, did the plaintiff sustain any injury; and, if so, what is the amount of damages to be awarded him. Second, whether the injury was sustained by plaintiff from the negligence of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad, or from the negligence of its agents. Third, as the liability of the Union Railway & Transit Company rests upon the degree of negligence of which it was guilty, whether its direct negligence or unskilfulness caused the injury. It was bound, not to the extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, but to the ordinary diligence and skill which its employment needs.

It must be understood that, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, his cause of action may be against one or both of the defendants, although he will ultimately be allowed to receive compensation only once.

If the plaintiff is entitled to recover, the amount of damages to be allowed must be sufficient to compensate him for the amount of expenditures and losses by him sustained in consequence of such injury, taking also into consideration the extent of his injuries, the sufferings by him undergone therefrom, and the effect of the accident on his general health.

The jury, through their foreman, informed the court that they had agreed upon damages, and wished 'to know whether a judgment against both companies will hold, or can it be assessed against one through the negligence of its agents.'

TREAT D. J.

If each company is at fault, the same amount of damages should be rendered against each.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded him $7,500 damages against each defendant, and the court ordered that the satisfaction of the judgment in one case should operate as a satisfaction in both.

NOTE. It...