Lynch v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.

Decision Date19 November 1907
CourtMissouri Supreme Court
PartiesLYNCH v. CHICAGO & A. RY. CO.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; D. H. Eby, Judge.

Action by Catherine Lynch against the Chicago & Alton Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. O. Gray and Scarritt, Scarritt & Jones, for appellant. P. H. Cullen, Tapley & Fitzgerrell, and Thad. C. Cox, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff, Mrs. Lynch, to recover damages under section 2864, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1637], for the death of her son, John Lynch, which occurred on August 31, 1902. Prior to and at the time of his death John Lynch was in the employ of the defendant company as a "signal man"; that is, it was his duty to inspect and keep in proper order the automatic electric block signals and bells along a certain section of defendant's line in Lafayette county from Higginsville to Alma. The petition alleges that the said John Lynch was killed by the defendant on or about August 31, 1902, at the place and under the circumstances herein stated.

Plaintiff states that her son, John Lynch, was in the employ of the defendant railroad company, and it was his duty to run a velocipede car over the defendant railroad company's track between the stations of Higginsville and Alma; that on or about the 31st day of August, 1902, her said son, in the discharge of his duties as aforesaid, was operating his velocipede car on said tracks, and was running the same east from Higginsville to Alma; that, while he was so upon said track operating said velocipede car, an engine owned, operated, and controlled by the defendant railway company, its agents and servants, was carelessly and negligently run east over and along said tracks; that the agents and servants of the railway company knew that deceased was upon the track, as aforesaid, and could have known it by the exercise of ordinary care, and carelessly and negligently failed to give any signals of the approach of said engine, and carelessly and negligently failed to stop said engine, but, on the contrary, carelessly and negligently ran the same with great force and speed into, against, and upon the plaintiff's said son and his car. Plaintiff says that the said defendant knew that her said son was upon the track, and knew he was in a position of peril and unaware thereof, for a long time before said engine collided with him and the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • Galicich v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1939
    ... ... Railroad Company was under duty to have warned Middleton of ... the approach of the Bertagnolli car. Westover v. Chicago, ... Mil. & St. P. R. Company, 266 N.W. 741, 267 N.W. 427 ... Grand Trunk Western Ry. Company v. Boylen, 81 F.2d ... 91. Landry v. Great ... or else were not looking. ( Ellis v. Met. St. Ry ... Co., 234 Mo. 657, 673, 138 S.W. 23; Lynch v. Ry ... Co., 208 Mo. 1, 24.) It has been several times ruled by ... the supreme and appellate courts that testimony of a witness, ... with ... ...
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1929
    ... ... App. 691; Stewart v. Gas Co. (Mo.), 241 S.W. 909; Hatchett v. U. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 878; Burtch v. Wabash, 236 S.W. 338; Lynch v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 1, 21. (5) That the deceased, who, as conductor, had charge of this work train containing cars presently to be set out, was "on ... [Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 472.] The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a scintilla of evidence in support of ... ...
  • McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1930
    ... ... v. Conoyer (Nebr.), 59 N.W. 950; C.B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Gunderson (Ill.), 51 N.E. 704; Schlerth v. Railroad, 115 Mo. 87; Lynch v. Railroad Co., 208 Mo. 1; Rine v. Railroad Co., 100 Mo. 228. (3) Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that the violation of the Federal ... Eisenhart, 280 Fed. 271.] A car coupler may be defective within this section, without being actually broken or containing a visible defect. [Chicago I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Stierwalt, 153 N.E. 807.] Nor is it any defense that the car was moved by defendant without knowledge of defects. [United States ... ...
  • Rockenstein v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1930
    ... ... [Lynch v. Railway Co., 208 Mo. 1, 19, and cases there cited.] The appellant's abstract of the ... 31 S.W.2d 801 ... record, filed herein, omits and ... ...
  • 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