Martin v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 11 February 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 23280.,23280. |
Citation | 258 S.W. 1023,302 Mo. 506 |
Parties | MARTIN v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; Fred Stewart, Judge.
Suit by May Martin, administratrix of the estate of William H. Martin, deceased, against the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, John H. Lucas, and Wm. C. Lucas, both of Kansas City, G. Purd Hays, of Ozark, and W. P. Sullivan, of Billings, for appellant.
Moore, Barrett & Moore, of Ozark, and Hamlin & Hamlin and C. W. Hamlin, all of Springfield, for respondent.
SMALL, C. I.
Appeal from the circuit court of Christian county. Suit by widow for death of her husband under federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665). Plaintiff recovered judgment for $17,000, from which defendant appealed.
The petition alleged that on September 15, 1920, the defendant was engaged in operating a railroad carrying freight and passengers to and from the states of Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Tennessee; that her husband was the fireman of a switch engine and member of a switch crew in the yards of defendant at Springfield, Mo.; that said engine and crew were used by defendant in making up trains at Springfield going to points in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, and in distributing cars brought into such yards from those states; that on the night of September 15, 1920, while working as such fireman on a switch engine in said yards while handling interstate traffic, as he was engaged in throwing coal on the fire in said engine the said engine and cars violently collided with other cars standing on the track, and he was thrown by such collision against the iron can rack on the boiler, or against the cab, or bolt in the cab, plaintiff does not know which, but believes it was one or the other, and was injured as follows: "Was bruised near the junction of the lower lumbar region and sacrum by reason of which his spine and cord was injured sufficient to cause loss of consciousness and temporary insanity," and finally caused his death on November 20, 1920. The negligence charged is that the other members of the switching crew, the night being dark, negligently failed to be at such places on said train, where it ran on a curve, so as to enable them to communicate with each other and to signal each other and the engineer in charge of such engine of other cars or obstructions on the 'track in time to avoid colliding therewith, and the engineer knowing this fact negligently proceeded with said cars and ran said engine and said cars violently against said other cars standing on the track; that a switchman could have been placed on the cars or on the ground where he could have notified the engineer of such cars on the track in time to have prevented such collision ; that the engineer also negligently failed to keep a sharp lookout for such obstructions on the track and for signals from the switchmen. The prayer was for $50,000 damages. The answer was a general denial, assumption of risk, and contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The reply put the affirmative defenses of the answer in issue.
Plaintiff's evidence:
Garner, the engineer, testified in substance:
That on the night of September 15, 1920, he was engineer and the decedent was fireman on a switch engine of defendant at its yards in Springfield, Mo. There were three other members of the switching crew, a foreman, and two switchmen as helpers. That night Wolf was the foreman, Kirkman was a helper, and Porter was the other man, he thought, though not certain. The foreman gave directions for the movement of the engine. The engineer stays on the right-hand side of the engine, the: fireman on the left.
Cross-examination:
Redirect-examination:
Pat Kelly testified as an expert: That he had operated the engine on which deceased was hurt, and that the deceased, while in the act of shoveling coal, if the engine and cars collided with other cars, might be thrown so that his back would strike the can rack. Defendant duly objected to this evidence as usurping the province of the jury. A. E. Jennings testified for plaintiff;
He was a locomotive fireman, and had run engine 965, and was familiar with its make-up. He was asked substantially the same hypothetical question as the witness Kelly, to which defendant made the same objection, which the court overruled and defendant excepted. But he answered that he would probably hit his shoulder or his side on the can rack, and that, if the rate of speed was only three miles an hour, there was not anything on the cab he could have been thrown against except to strike his shoulder or his side. The impact of eight or ten cars going three miles an hour in coupling into one or more cars ahead, if the engineer should immediately apply his brakes, would be not much more than to throw a fireman off his balance.
W. P. Gustun testified:
He was yardmaster at Springfield; that all freight from all points in and out of Missouri was shipped to Springfield over the Frisco; passed through the yards at Springfield. Each switch engine is used in the yard for the purpose of handling any cars it may be necessary to handle, regardless of where they are from or their destination.
Defendant's evidence: Richards testified:
That he was brakeman on the switching crew on the 15th of September, 1920, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
... ... Pryor v. Williams, 254 U.S. 43, affirming Williams v. Pryor, 46 S.W. (2d) 341; Martin v. Wabash Ry. Co., 325 Mo. 1107, 30 S.W. (2d) 735; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 501 ... St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 301 Mo. 79, 256 S.W. 169, l.c. 171; Steele v. Kansas City Southern Railroad Co., ... ...
-
Shidloski v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
... ... Poindexter v. Ry. Co., 319 Mo. 285; Martin v ... St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 302 Mo. 506; Jarvis v ... Railroad Co., 37 S.W.2d 602; ... ...
-
Berry v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... the work in hand at the time. The work in hand was not ... interstate in character. C. B. & Q. Railroad v ... Harrison, 241 U.S. 177, 60 L.Ed. 941; I. C. C ... Railroad v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 58 L.Ed. 1051; ... Martin v. Railroad, 258 S.W. 1026; D. L. & W ... Railroad v. Peck, 255 F. 262; P. & R. Railroad v ... Cannon, 296 F. 302; Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad ... Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353, 61 L.Ed. 358; Erie ... Railroad v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 61 L.Ed. 319; ... Schauberger v. Railroad, ... ...
-
Pashea v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... Chesapeake & Ohio ... R. Co. v. Thomason, 70 F.2d 860; Martin v. St ... Louis-S. F. R. Co., 302 Mo. 506, 258 S.W. 1023; ... Hedrick v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 195 ... ...