McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co.

Decision Date28 June 1905
PartiesMcHUGH v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Action by Mary McHugh against the St. Louis Transit Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Boyle, Priest & Lehmann and Geo. W. Easley, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, resulting from injuries received in an accident which occurred at the intersection of Delmar and Euclid avenues, in the city of St. Louis, on the 1st day of April, 1901, by reason of one of the cars of the defendant, in which plaintiff was a passenger, being started forward with a jerk just as plaintiff was in the act of alighting therefrom. The petition alleges that as such car approached said Euclid avenue and Delmar avenue defendant's conductor in charge of said car called out "Euclid Avenue!" and said car was stopped at or near said crossing, plaintiff's destination, and plaintiff thereupon, at said invitation, proceeded to alight from said car whilst the same was so stopped, and whilst she was in the act of alighting, and before she had reasonable time or opportunity to do so, defendant's servants in charge of said car carelessly and negligently caused and suffered said car to be started, whereby the plaintiff was thrown from said car, and sustained great and permanent injuries upon her body and legs, and also great and permanent internal injuries, sustaining an injury to her knee and to her side, causing a compression to her side and chest and injury to her lungs, and causing her to have pleurisy, and also injuring her head, and causing a great and permanent injury to her nervous system. And the plaintiff avers that at the time of her said injury there was in force in the city of St. Louis an ordinance of said city by which it was provided that conductors of street cars should not allow women or children to enter or leave the car whilst the same was in motion, yet the plaintiff avers that defendant's conductor in charge of said car, in violation of said ordinance, caused said car to start in motion whilst plaintiff was leaving it, and allowed the plaintiff to leave said car whilst the same was in motion, which violation of said ordinance directly contributed to cause plaintiff's said injuries. The answer was a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff in attempting to alight from a moving car 150 feet east of the eastern line of Euclid avenue.

The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that she was at the time of the accident about 25 years of age, and receiving $14 per month for her services as housewoman; that on the day of the accident to her she boarded defendant's west-bound car at Pendleton and Finney avenues, about 8 o'clock in the evening, and that her destination was Euclid avenue, or 4900 Delmar avenue; that on the same car with her there were five other passengers, four in the front part and one in the rear part of the car; that when the conductor called for plaintiff's fare she requested him to let her off at 4900 west, or Euclid avenue; that when the car reached said avenue or number it stopped, and the conductor from the platform spoke to plaintiff, saying "this is 4900," and told her to get off, whereupon the plaintiff arose in her seat and went towards and upon the rear platform of the car, and took one step, when the car was moved forward with a jerk, which threw her to the ground, and caused the injuries complained of; that after being thrown from the car plaintiff was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital, where she remained 10 days under the treatment of physicians then in the service of the St. Louis Transit Company; that upon leaving the hospital she returned to Mrs. Dunn's, where she had been employed at the time of the injury, and was thereafter under the treatment of Dr. Grant. Plaintiff stated in her testimony that she was injured on the back of her head and on her side, and that her knees and arms were bruised; that she was rendered unconscious by the fall, and did not regain consciousness until after she reached the hospital; that after the accident and up to the time of the trial she had a pain in her side, and had been subject to fainting spells, and had pains in her head constantly; that she was unable to discharge her duties as servant to Mrs. Dunn until May following her injury. Plaintiff proved that she paid $30 for medical services.

Mrs. Dunn, witness for plaintiff, stated that before the injury plaintiff's health was good, but that when she returned after the injury she would complain of her side hurting her, and of pains in the back of her neck and head; that she would have fainting spells, and at those times would fall forward on the floor, dropping anything she might have in her hands; that these spells at first occurred once or twice a week, and sometimes would be 10 days apart, and then several weeks or a few months apart, and then come very close together again.

Plaintiff read in evidence article 6, entitled "Of Street Cars," and subdivision 5 of section 1246, of the Revised Ordinances of the city of St. Louis, as follows: "Conductors shall not allow ladies or children to leave or enter the cars while the same are in motion."

Adolphus Brown, witness for the defendant, testified that he was the conductor in charge of the car at the time plaintiff claims she was injured. He testified, in substance, that there were at the time of the accident only three passengers on the car—the plaintiff, a Miss Walsh, and another lady, whose name he did not mention; that plaintiff asked him to let her off at Euclid avenue, and that as the car passed Bayard avenue he called out, "Euclid avenue, 4900!" that plaintiff came back in a rush, and stepped on the platform and down on the first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 30031.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 Diciembre 1932
    ....... December 14, 1932. .         Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. William II. Killoren, Judge. .         AFFIRMED. .          John A. ...Pac. Ry. Co., 217 Mo. 645, 117 S.W. 1140; Lindsay v. Kansas City, 195 Mo. 166, 93 S.W. 277; McHugh v. Transit Co., 190 Mo. 85, 88 S.W. 855; Osborne v. Wells, 211 S.W. 887; Schwanenfeldt v. Met. St. ......
  • Gaty v. United Rys. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 28 Abril 1923
    ....... April 28, 1923. . [251 S.W. 62] .         Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. .         Action by Florence L. Gaty against the ...Laughlin v. Ry., supra; Lindsay v. Kansas City, 195 Mo. loc. cit. 180, 93 S. W. 273; McHugh v. Tr. Co., 190 Mo. loc. cit. 95, 88 S. W. 853. .         Further objection is made to the ...Laughlin v. Ry., 275 Mo. loc. cit. 473, 205 S. W. 3; McHugh, v. Transit Co., 190 Mo. loc. cit. 95, 88 S. W. 853. Any question, however, that might otherwise arise as to ......
  • Steffen v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 Diciembre 1932
    ...... .           Appeal. from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William H. Killoren , Judge. . .          . Affirmed. . . ... Co., 217 Mo. 645, 117 S.W. 1140; Lindsay v. Kansas. City, 195 Mo. 166, 93 S.W. 277; McHugh v. Transit. Co., 190 Mo. 85, 88 S.W. 855; Osborne v. Wells, . 211 S.W. 887; Schwanenfeldt v. ......
  • Evans v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Mayo 1938
    ......           Appeal. from Circuit Court of St. Louis; Hon. M. Hartmann,. Judge;. . .          . Affirmed. . .          Thos. ... relate to past history. Corbett v. Term. Railroad. Assn., 82 S.W.2d 97; McHugh v. Transit Co., 190. Mo. 95, 88 S.W. 853; Lindsay v. Kansas City, 195 Mo. 166, 93 S.W. 273; ......
  • 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