Meenach v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 02 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 17849.,17849.
• Parties: MEENACH v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

187 S.W. 879

MEENACH v. CRAWFORD.

No. 17849.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 2, 1916.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled July 3, 1916.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Maud A. Meenach against O. T. Crawford. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This suit was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover $10,000 damages sustained by her through the alleged negligence of the defendant in killing her husband by striking him with an automobile The sufficiency of the pleadings has not been drawn in question and consequently will receive no consideration.

The injury occurred at the intersection of Jefferson and Park avenues, in the city of St. Louis. The former runs north and south, and the latter east and west. The sidewalks on Jefferson avenue east and west of Park avenue are 12 feet wide and the roadway is 66 feet between the curbs; and the sidewalk on the north side of Park avenue, east of Jefferson, is 35 feet wide, and that on the north side, west of Jefferson, is 15 feet in width. Upon each of those avenues there is a double track street railway, with switches connecting all of said tracks, north, south, east, and west. The distance from the eastern rail of the north-bound track on Jefferson avenue, north of Park avenue to the east curb, is 25 feet and 7 inches, and the distance from the south line of Park avenue east of Jefferson to the north line of Park east of Jefferson is 120 feet, and the roadway on Park avenue east of Jefferson is 50 feet wide.

There was no dispute as to the fact that George S. Meenach and the plaintiff were husband and wife at the time of his injury and death; and that he was killed by being struck by the automobile of the defendant while he was riding therein and being operated by his agent.

The plaintiff's evidence further tended to show that her husband was injured on November 22, 1911, about 8:30 p. m. on Jefferson avenue, by a north-bound car, just north of the north line of the north sidewalk of Park avenue, had it been extended east to the east line thereof. Both of said avenues were among the principal thoroughfares in the city, and there was a great deal of travel on both by means of street cars, ordinary vehicles, automobiles, and pedestrians, but not so heavy at the time of the injury as earlier in the evening.

Paul S. Banta testified for plaintiff, substantially as follows:

That he was a motorman on a car of the United Railways Company on the Jefferson avenue line on the 22d day of November, 1911, and had been such motorman for three years; that on November 22, 1911, his car had stopped on Jefferson avenue on the north side of Park, at the regular stop, for the purpose of receiving and discharging passengers; that he received a bell to stop there.

"Q. Did you see Mr. Meenach that evening before he met with the injury? A. I saw him crossing in front of my car. Q. In what direction was he going? A. East from the west side of the street. Q. Now, tell the jury what happened. You say you saw him pass in front of your car. Now, what happened after he left the car track? A. After he passed in front of the car he walked directly towards the curb, but before he got there Mr. Crawford's machine struck him and knocked him down. Q. Had there been any signal or blow of the horn or anything else? What signal, if any, had you heard from this automobile? A. I heard no signal at all. Q. Can you tell us how far the automobile went after it struck Meenach? A. About its length. Q. What did you do after Meenach was struck? A. Why, Mr. Herrick and I got off and went over to the machine. Q. While you were on the ground did you receive any signal to go on with your car? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you received any signal to go on with your car prior to that? A. No, sir. Q. What was your car doing at the time Meenach passed you and when he was struck? A. Receiving and discharging passengers. Q. Was it moving or not? A. No, sir; standing perfectly still.

"The Court: Q. State whether the car passed over him or not? A. No, sir; I don't think it did; we took him out from between the front and rear wheels. Q. On which side? A. Right-hand side of the machine, right underneath the seat where the chauffeur was sitting. Q. And the right-hand side of the machine was nearest the curb? A. Yes, sir. Q. How far would you say this was from the curb? A. Well, we had room enough to get down there to get Mr. Meenach out from under the machine."

On cross-examination: "Q. Those cars, or that car you had there, including the platform, was about 36 or 40 feet long? A. Yes, sir, they ran that, if not more."

Witness states that after he had come to a stop on Jefferson avenue on the north side of Park with his ear he saw the man who afterwards turned out to be Mr. Meenach going from the west side of Jefferson avenue to the east side, and he passed in front of witness' car while the car was standing at that place.

"Q. I suppose he walked two or three feet in front of your car? A. Like anybody. Q. About two or three feet in front or one or two feet? A. I don't know just how far. Q. Give your best estimate. A. I don't know. Q. Would it be approximately two or three feet from your car? A. Something like that. Q. At that time you were not paying any attention to signals of automobiles or wagons, were you? You were looking ahead? A. We always hear those if they are given. Q. You wouldn't always hear them whenever they were given? A. Yes, sir; on these open cars. Q. What do you mean by that? A. Not a pay-as-you-enter. Q. You don't mean to say that every time you stopped on the north side there you would hear every signal that was given in the neighborhood of that crossing? A. Why wouldn't I? Q. Well, did you? A. Sure we did. Q. Every signal? A. We are supposed to listen for all signals. Q. Did Mr. Meenach have an umbrella over his head? A. No, sir. Q. How did he walk? A. Brisk. Q. You saw him go past; then, just after he passed in front of you, you say that the machine hit him. Did you hear it? A. I kind of heard it and saw it at the same time. Q. But it happened instantly after he passed beyond your car? A. It didn't happen instantly, because he had time to walk across the street. Q. He didn't get across, did he? A. He got awful near it. Q. When the machine stopped, how far was the eastern part of it from the eastern curb? A. Well, we had room enough to go in between the curb and the machine to get the man. Q. Two or three feet between the machine and curb? A. Yes, sir. Q. Suppose that is the front platform, and Mr. Meenach is crossing over here in a brisk walk; did you see him or follow him as he went beyond the car? A. Yes, sir; we always watch them. Q. What did he do as he went beyond the car? A. Walked towards the sidewalk. Q. Did he look straight ahead? A. I don't know how he looked; I didn't notice it; I noticed the man walking across the street."

Witness states' that Mr. Meenach passed across the street like anybody would; he wasn't stooping; witness saw him walk briskly toward the curb, and before he could get to the curb he was struck by this automobile. Witness saw the machine had lights on it and they were burning, but cannot say whether it had two headlights on it, as indicated by counsel for defendant.

T. L. Herrick testified that he was a motorman for the United Railways Company, and on the evening of November 22, 1911 at the time Meenach was hurt, he was a passenger standing on the front platform of the car mentioned by the last witness; that the witness did not see Meenach until just as he was struck by the machine; that he did not see Meenach cross in front of the car; that he helped take him out from under the machine, between the front and rear wheels, just about under the chauffeur's feet; witness had not observed the automobile before it hit Meenach; that the automobile went about its length after it hit Mr. Meenach; that at the time the accident happened the street car was discharging and loading passengers; that the automobile had given no warning of its approach; that he helped Mr. Meenach into the drug store and saw his injuries; that the defendant's automobile was a touring car; the defendant had a colored chauffeur, and defendant got out of the automobile after it struck Meenach. On cross-examination witness stated that he heard the conductor give the stop signal to the motorman on this street car, and the car stopped on Jefferson avenue on the north side of Park, the front of the car being something like 40 feet north of the north line of the north sidewalk on Park avenue; that, when the automobile stopped after it hit Mr. Meenach, the back end of the automobile was a little past, a few feet past, the front end of the street car.

"The Court: Q. Where was the deceased struck with reference to the front end of the car? A. About even with the front end of the car."

Oscar Ehrhardt testified that he was a conductor for the United Railways Company and was on the car spoken of by the other witnesses which had stopped at Jefferson avenue on the north side of Park avenue on the night of November 22, 1911; that it stopped on his signal to receive and discharge passengers; that he saw an automobile pass his car on the east side, going north on Jefferson while the street car was standing still and went between the car and the east side of the street, going north.

"Q. Where were you when you first observed the automobile? A. I was on the rear platform on the south side of Park avenue. Q. As it came along and passed your car, where were you? A. Still on the rear platform."

Witness did not see the automobile strike Meenach, but saw it after it struck him; that when he got off the car the automobile had stopped; it was about its full length in front of the car and was about two or three feet from the curb on the east side of Park avenue. Witness states...