Lyon v. St. Louis

• Decision Date: 11 February 1879
• Citation: 6 Mo.App. 516
• Parties: OTIS P. LYON, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

6 Mo.App. 516

OTIS P. LYON, Respondent,

v.ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 11, 1879.

Where, under a license from the city, dirt on a railroad-crossing is piled upon the street by the railroad company until the city shall remove it, and is left there at night without a light having been placed thereon, in violation of a city ordinance, the railroad company is liable for injuries suffered in consequence of the absence of a light.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

THOROUGHMAN & WARREN, for appellant.

MCCOMAS & MCKEIGHAN, for respondent.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The railway track of defendant, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain, and Southern Railroad Company, ran along Main Street, crossing Chouteau Avenue, in the city of St. Louis. At the intersection of those thoroughfares, on December 8, 1875, the servants and employees of defendant had deposited a heap of mud about eleven feet long, three feet wide, and three feet high. The work was finished late in the afternoon, and was left in that condition for the night, without any light placed upon it, as there should have been in obedience to a city ordinance. After dark the plaintiff was riding down Chouteau Avenue in a buggy driven by one Nichols, when a wheel ran upon the mudheap, causing the buggy to turn over, whereby the plaintiff was thrown out and his left arm broken. This suit was instituted against the city of St. Louis and the railroad company to recover damages for the injury thus sustained. The verdict of a jury was in favor of the city of St. Louis, and against the other defendant, assessing the damages at $4,000. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and the defendant appealed.

The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of a city ordinance which required, under penalty, the placing of lights at night upon all temporary street obstructions. It was objected that the testimony was irrelevant, and calculated to mislead the jury. We do not perceive the point of the objection. If the defendant's failure to perform a duty enjoined by municipal regulation had any tendency towards causing the injury suffered by the plaintiff, this was a legitimate subject of inquiry for tracing the injury to defendant's default; but in such an inquiry an essential step was to ascertain what was that duty, and how was it to be performed. The ordinance furnished the only direct and proper answer.

It is...