Lamar Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1908 |
| Citation | 110 S.W. 601,131 Mo.App. 115 |
| Parties | LAMAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondents, v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court.--Hon. J. B. Johnson, Judge.
REVERSED.
Judgment reversed.
L. F Parker, W. F. Evans and Woodruff & Mann for appellant.
(1) The court erred in refusing to peremptorily instruct the jury to find for defendant at the close of all the evidence in the case. Manufacturing Co. v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App 453; Moffatt Com. Co. v. Railroad, 113 Mo.App. 544; Woolsey-Stahl Hay Co. v. Railroad, 113 Mo.App. 651.
Cole Burnett & Moore for respondents.
(1) The loss of these goods in the flood of 1903 is no defense, if defendant's negligence concurred therein. Long ago the Supreme Court declared, and the doctrine has been repeated in many later cases, that a common carrier is an insurer and held to a very stringent responsibility, and "therefore, although the loss occurs by the act of God or the public enemies, yet, if it might have been avoided by skill and diligence at the time, the carrier is liable." The act of God must be the sole cause. Wolf v. Express Co., 43 Mo. 421; Read v. Railroad, 60 Mo. 206; Pruitt v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 542; Vail v. Railroad, 63 Mo. 230; Davis v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 340; Newcomb v. Railroad, 169 Mo. 427; Armentrout v. Railway, 1 Mo.App. 158; Grier v. Railroad, 108 Mo.App. 570; Prince v. Compress Co., 112 Mo.App. 49; Com. Co. v. Railroad, 113 Mo.App. 544; Pinkerton v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 288; Manufacturing Co. v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 458; Standley v. Railroad, 121 Mo.App. 545; Warehouse Co. v. Railroad, 124 Mo.App. 561.
--This case was here on a former appeal and was reversed and remanded on the ground that the evidence introduced by plaintiff was not sufficient to take to the jury as an issue of fact the alleged negligence of defendant. The reported opinion may be consulted for a statement of the facts appearing in the record. At the second trial, the same evidence was introduced and, in addition, other facts were brought out by plaintiffs which the learned trial judge deemed adequate to warrant the submission to the jury of the question of defendant's negligence. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and the cause is before us again on the appeal of defendant.
We are of opinion that defendant's request for an instruction peremptorily directing a verdict in its favor should have been given. The new facts adduced by plaintiffs, in substance, are as follows: Two of the railroad companies having yards in the West Bottoms at Kansas City began on Saturday, May 30, 1903, to move freight out of the lowland in anticipation of a possible inundation of their tracks. But it appears these operations were prosecuted in areas which the slowly rising waters began to invade on Saturday, and that no one thought on that day that the flood would so suddenly increase to a volume sufficient to submerge the higher bottom levels under some eight or ten feet of water, as it did that night and the following day, nor was there any intimation in the reports sent out by the United States Weather Bureau of the coming of a flood so extraordinary. The report published that morning was as follows:
Saturday night the water which had risen slowly began to rise very rapidly and during Sunday attained a height of thirty-five feet, an increase of ten feet. The great flood came from the Kansas river and its approach was not known to the officers of the weather bureau nor to anyone else on Saturday. When we consider that defendant's freight depot was on the highest level in the bottoms and was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial