Lord v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: 82 Mo. 139
• Parties: LORD v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

82 Mo. 139

LORD

v.THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1884.

Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.--HON. GEO. W. DUNN, Judge.

REVERSED.

M. A. Low for appellant.

The mere fact that a passenger train was run through the outskirts of a town, at a point where even the streets were 900 feet apart, and where, so far as the evidence shows, there were neither houses nor people, is not, of itself, negligence, or evidence from which negligence may be inferred. Aside from statutory or municipal regulation, no rate of speed is negligent per se. Powell v. Railway Co., 76 Mo. 80; Maher v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 267; Bell v. Railroad Co., 72 Mo. 50, 61; Wallace v. Railway Co., 74 Mo. 594; Goodwin v. Railway Co., 75 Mo. 73. The rate of speed not being of itself negligent, and there being no other fact or circumstance tending to make it negligent, the court erred in refusing to declare, as a matter of law, that the defendant was not liable. There was no evidence tending to show when or how the cow went upon the track, or that defendant's employes saw, or could have seen it in time to save it; or that if they had been running slower they might have seen the cow in time to save it. Wallace v. Railway Co., 74 Mo. 597. Even though the speed of the train was in itself negligent, still there was no evidence that it caused the injury. There was no necessary connection between the rate of speed and the injury to the cow. Powell v. Railway Co., 76 Mo. 82.

H. C. Hughes for respondent.

The fact that defendant's train was running at a wanton and reckless rate of speed, in conjunction with the fact, so far as we know from the evidence, that it was through a populous portion of the city, and after dark, shows a reckless disregard of life in general, and constitutes negligence. Isabel v. Railroad Co., 60 Mo. 482. There is sufficient connection between the negligence and the injury to the cow. One of the chief grounds of evidence is the known and experienced connection between collateral facts and circumstances satisfactorily proved, and the fact in controversy. Greenleaf's Ev., (6 Ed.) p. 17, § 13. Common experience goes far to show that the injury is the almost necessary consequence of the collateral facts proved and necessarily inferred.

PHILIPS, C.

This action was begun in a justice's court, in Clinton county, based on the following statement:

“Plaintiff states that on or about the 5th day of December, 1880, defendant did, in Lathrop township, in the county of Clinton, State of Missouri, by its agents, and engines and cars, negligently strike, beat, bruise, wound and kill one four-year-old cow, the same being the property of plaintiff, and reasonably worth the sum of $35, for which he asks judgment, with his costs in this suit expended.” Judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to the circuit court, with a like result. From that judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

On the trial of said cause, the plaintiff, to sustain the issues upon his part, offered evidence tending to prove that his cow, of the value of $35.00, was struck and killed in the village of Lathrop, and about 150 yards south of the north line of the section upon which said town is located, by a passenger train of the defendant, going north, after dark, on the evening of September 5th, 1880; that on the north line of Lathrop, about 150 yards north of where his said cow was struck and killed, there was a public crossing, and there was also another public crossing, about 150 yards south of where said cow was killed. Plaintiff against the objection of defendant, introduced evidence tending to show that the train in question did not stop...