Loduca v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 30 July 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 25439.,25439. |
Citation | 289 S.W. 908 |
Parties | LODUCA v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; George E. Mix, Judge.
Action by Joseph Loduca against the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff and granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Patrick A. Lavin and William Kohn, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
E. T. Miller and A. P. Stewart, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries. Plaintiff had a verdict below for $12,500, which verdict was set aside by the trial court upon the motion of the defendant, on the fourth ground of such motion (the court sustaining the motion on said ground alone), which reads:
"(4) Because the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence interposed by defendant at the close of the evidence on the part of plaintiff, over the objection and exception of defendant at the time."
From the order setting aside the verdict the plaintiff has appealed, and asks that the verdict be reinstated and judgment entered thereon.
The ground of negligence is thus stated in the petition:
The answer consists: (1) General denial; (2) a plea of contributory negligence; and (3) assumption of risk. Reply was a general denial. Such are the issues made by the pleadings.
I. The evidence for the plaintiff (under the trial court's order setting aside the verdict) is of prime importance. This evidence is short and clear upon the questions, although plaintiff, and perhaps one of his witnesses, had to speak through an interpreter. For some years the plaintiff had been working for defendant in the capacity of a section hand, doing all things pertaining to work usually done by such men, and working under a foreman. The day prior to the day of the accident he was engaged in cutting nuts upon the ends of bolts which held the iron rails of the tracks together. The work was upon a Y in a yard of tracks. The usual method of cutting the nut from the end of a bolt was to place a chisel, 8 to 10 inches long, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meierotto v. Thompson
...v. Loose-Wiles, Biscuit Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 884; Howard v. Mobile & Ohio R. Co., 335 Mo. 295, 73 S.W. (2d) 272; Loduca v. St. Louis-S.F.R. Co., 315 Mo. 331, 289 S.W. 908. Everett Hullverson for respondent; Orville Richardson of (1) There was substantial evidence of a violation of the Boiler In......
-
Morris v. Atlas Portland Cement Co.
...was caused by the negligence of the master in causing the boulder to be placed on the load. Allen v. Ry. Co., 294 S.W. 80; Loduca v. Ry. Co., 289 S.W. 908, 315 Mo. 331; Hoffman v. Lime Co., 296 S.W. 764. (11) The contention of defendant that plaintiff cannot recover because he elected to st......
-
Morris v. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
...May 7, 1940. 1. Parrish v. United Rys., 260 S.W. 748 (Mo.); Hutchcraft v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 282 S.W. 38 (Mo.); Loduca v. St. L.S.F. Ry., 315 Mo. 331, 289 S.W. 908; Cunningham v. Doe Run Lead Co., 26 S.W. (2d) 957 (Mo.); Skidmore v. Haggard, 110 S.W. (2d) 726 (Mo.); Knott v. Mo. Boiler &......
-
Downing v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.
... ... Rowden v. Daniell, 151 Mo.App. 15. (3) The verdict ... and judgment are excessive. Loduca v. Ry. Co., 289 ... S.W. 908; Adams v. Railroad, 287 Mo. 554; Knott ... v. Boiler Works, 299 Mo ... ...