Larkin v. Wells, No. 19194.

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBennick
Citation278 S.W. 1087
Decision Date08 December 1925
Docket NumberNo. 19194.
PartiesLARKIN v. WELLS.
278 S.W. 1087
LARKIN
v.
WELLS.
No. 19194.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
December 8, 1925.
Rehearing Denied December 30, 1925.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert W. Hall, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by John Larkin against Rolla Wells, receiver of United Railways Company of St. Louis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles W. Bates, T. E. Francis, 0. P. Owen, and John F. Evans, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Bryan, Williams & Cave, and Wendell Berry, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, C.


Plaintiff instituted this action to recover for injuries to his person and damage to his property, alleged to have been sustained as the result of a collision between his Packard automobile, which he was driving southwardly on Catalpa street, in the city of St. Louis, and a west-bound Hodiamont street car operated by defendant. The verdict was for plaintiff in the sum of $3,428, and a judgment entered thereon, from which defendant has appealed.

The petition counted on five assignments of negligence: (1) Operation of the street car at a negligent rate of speed in excess of 15 miles per hour; (2) failure to sound a warning; (3) violation of the vigilant watch ordinance; (4) failure to keep the car under control; (5) failure to stop the car or check the speed thereof after the motorman saw, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have seen, plaintiff in a position of danger and oblivious thereto.

The answer was a general denial, coupled with several affirmative pleas of contributory negligence. The reply was conventional.

The evidence disclosed that plaintiff, on November 29, 1920, was driving his automobile southwardly on Catalpa street, with the right side of his auto 8 feet east of the west

278 S.W. 1088

curb. Catalpa street at that point is 30 feet in width and is crossed approximately at right angles by the Hodiamont tracks of defendant. The accident occurred between two and 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

Plaintiff testified that he was driving at a speed of 15 or 20 miles per hour until he came within 40 feet of the west-bound street car track, when he slackened his speed, and looked to the east, but did not see any car approaching from that direction. He did observe an east-bound car approaching from the west, which stopped on the west side of Catalpa to discharge passengers. Seeing this car standing still, he started toward the tracks, and continued until he reached the first or west-bound track, when he was instantly struck by a west-bound car, his automobile crushed, and he himself rendered unconscious. He admitted that he did not look towards the east again after he looked from the point 40 feet north of the track, and at no time saw the west-bound car which struck him.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must do after a verdict in his favor, we find that, when the west-bound car was 15 feet east of the east curb of Catalpa, it was being operated at a speed of 10 miles per hour; that, as it came up to the regular stopping point at the east side of the street, it slowed down to the speed at which a man ordinarily walks; and that at a speed even of 15 miles per hour it could have been stopped with safety to the passengers within a space of 25 feet. There was testimony that, after plaintiff started up his machine from the point 40 feet north of the track, he kept his eyes continuously turned towards the east-bound car standing an the west side of the street; that, when the west-bound car was 15 feet east of Catalpa, the automobile was 35 to 40 feet north of the track; and that, when the car came to its usual stopping place at the east curb of the street, the automobile was only 20...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Smith v. Public Service Co., No. 28941.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 17, 1931
    ...behind the traffic. [See Maginnis v. Ry. Co., supra; Smith v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 9 S.W. (2d) 939, 945, 321 Mo. 105; Larkin v. Wells. 278 S.W. 1087, and cases cited; State ex rel. v. Trimble et al. (Mo.), 260 S.W. 1000, and cases cited.] There was evidence from which the jury could find......
  • Kloeckener v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., No. 30395.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 22, 1932
    ...1000; Logan v. C.B. & Q. Railroad Co., 300 Mo. 611, 254 S.W. 705; Zumwalt v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 266 S.W. 717; Larkin v. Wells (Mo. App.), 278 S.W. 1087; Anderson v. Davis, 314 Mo. 515, 284 S.W. 439; Smith v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry Co., 321 Mo. 107, 9 S.W. (2d) 939; Herrell v. St. Louis-Sa......
  • Gately v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., No. 29728.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...231 S.W. 630; Simpson v. Wells, 237 S.W. 520; Canty v. Halpin, 242 S.W. 94; Melican v. Whitlow Const. Co., 278 S.W. 361; Larkin v. Wells, 278 S.W. 1087; Seewald v. Gentry, 286 S.W. 445; Miller v. Collins, 40 S.W. (2d) 1063; Laudwig v. Central Mo. Power & Lt. Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 625; Shupback ......
  • Biskup v. Hoffman, No. 19520.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1926
    ...demurrer (also assigned as error) is the only point to be reviewed. Canty v. Halpin, 294 Mo. 96, 242 S. W. 94; Larkin v. Wells (Mo. App.) 278 S. W. 1087; Smiley v. Jessup (Mo. App.) 282 S. W. 110; Courtois v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mo. App.) 282 S. W. 484; Gray v. Union Elec. L. & P. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Smith v. Public Service Co., No. 28941.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 17, 1931
    ...behind the traffic. [See Maginnis v. Ry. Co., supra; Smith v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 9 S.W. (2d) 939, 945, 321 Mo. 105; Larkin v. Wells. 278 S.W. 1087, and cases cited; State ex rel. v. Trimble et al. (Mo.), 260 S.W. 1000, and cases cited.] There was evidence from which the jury could find......
  • Kloeckener v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., No. 30395.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 22, 1932
    ...1000; Logan v. C.B. & Q. Railroad Co., 300 Mo. 611, 254 S.W. 705; Zumwalt v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 266 S.W. 717; Larkin v. Wells (Mo. App.), 278 S.W. 1087; Anderson v. Davis, 314 Mo. 515, 284 S.W. 439; Smith v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry Co., 321 Mo. 107, 9 S.W. (2d) 939; Herrell v. St. Louis-Sa......
  • Gately v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., No. 29728.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...231 S.W. 630; Simpson v. Wells, 237 S.W. 520; Canty v. Halpin, 242 S.W. 94; Melican v. Whitlow Const. Co., 278 S.W. 361; Larkin v. Wells, 278 S.W. 1087; Seewald v. Gentry, 286 S.W. 445; Miller v. Collins, 40 S.W. (2d) 1063; Laudwig v. Central Mo. Power & Lt. Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 625; Shupback ......
  • Biskup v. Hoffman, No. 19520.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1926
    ...demurrer (also assigned as error) is the only point to be reviewed. Canty v. Halpin, 294 Mo. 96, 242 S. W. 94; Larkin v. Wells (Mo. App.) 278 S. W. 1087; Smiley v. Jessup (Mo. App.) 282 S. W. 110; Courtois v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mo. App.) 282 S. W. 484; Gray v. Union Elec. L. & P. C......
  • 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