Miller v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
Citation | 134 S.W. 1045,155 Mo. App. 528 |
Parties | MILLER v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS et al. |
Decision Date | 21 February 1911 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.
Action by Albert H. Miller against the United Railways Company of St. Louis and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Russell & Davidson, for appellant American Storage & Moving Co. Boyle & Priest and Glendy B. Arnold, for appellant United Rys. Co. W. R. Gentry, for respondent.
This is a suit for damages accrued to plaintiff on account of personal injuries received through the separate negligent acts of the two defendants which concurred in inflicting his hurt. Plaintiff recovered against both defendants jointly, and they each prosecute an appeal from that judgment.
Defendant United Railways Company, incorporated, owns and operates a street railway system in the city of St. Louis, and defendant American Storage & Moving Company, incorporated, owns and operates a storage and moving business in which it employs teams of horses and heavy moving vans in the same city. Plaintiff was a passenger on the street car of defendant United Railways Company operated by it on the Taylor Avenue line, and at the time of his injury was going north on such line on Euclid avenue at its point of crossing with West Pine boulevard. Plaintiff occupied the rear seat, which runs lengthwise along the west side of the car, and, while thus sitting reading a newspaper, a runaway team of horses drawing a moving van owned by the American Storage & Moving Company collided with the rear end of the car adjacent with sufficient force to protrude the forward end of the wagon pole through the side of the car and inflict serious injuries upon him. The wagon pole crushed through the side of the street car and struck plaintiff in the back with sufficient force to throw him out of his seat, break several of his ribs, and inflict serious and painful internal injuries. The suit is prosecuted against both the railways company, of which he was a passenger, and the storage and moving company, who owned the team and van, jointly, on the theory that each defendant was guilty of separate negligent acts which concurred proximately to occasion plaintiff's injury and consequent damage. The specific act of negligence relied upon for a recovery against the storage and moving company is that it left its team of horses not hitched and unattended in an open space near a public street of a great city, thus permitting them to escape and contribute to his injury, while the negligence alleged against the street car company is to the effect that its motorman so negligently managed and ran the car on which plaintiff was a passenger as to permit the collision to occur. And it is averred that these negligent omissions of duty on the part of the two defendants directly concurred and contributed to cause the injury complained of.
We will first consider the arguments advanced for a reversal of the judgment by the storage and moving company, and, second those by the other defendant. It is argued on the part of the storage and moving company that the court should have directed a verdict for it for the reason plaintiff failed to sustain the burden which the law cast upon him to prove the specific act of negligence alleged against it in the petition. But, on consideration of the proof made, we believe the argument to be unsound, for, though the team of horses appear to have been hitched to the hounds of the van, it was for the jury to answer as to whether such hitching was reasonably secure, or, in other words, as to whether ordinary care was exercised by defendant to that end. It appears the employés of the storage and moving company had transported a piano to the Monticello Hotel, located on Kings highway near West Pine boulevard, and upon arriving there drove the team and van into an open space in the rear adjacent to the hotel building. The team is shown to have been facing west and stopped with the horses' heads fronting a stone wall, and when in this position were permitted to stand unattended in the interim the employés were moving the piano from the van...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Brien v. Rindskopf
...v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 328 Mo. 389, 41 S.W. (2d) 543; Taylor v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 137 Mo. 363, 39 S.W. 88; Miller v. United Rys. Co., 155 Mo. App. 528, 134 S.W. 1045; Carr v. St. Louis Auto Supply Co., 293 Mo. 562, 239 S.W. 827. (b) An instruction which does not purport to cover the wh......
-
Neal v. Curtis Co. Mfg. Co.
...and are entitled to contribution among themselves. For this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded." In Miller v. United Rys. Co., 155 Mo. App. 528, 547, the same court, on similar facts, discussed the effect of this statute allowing contribution among defendants, and held: ......
-
Sloan v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...pleaded and attempted to be proven, which it failed to do. Allen v. Ry. Co., 294 S.W. 87; Young v. Wolff, 190 Mo. App. 48; Miller v. Rys. Co., 155 Mo. App. 528. (c) Moreover, the instruction is but declaratory of the statute and wholly fails to submit any issue respecting any alleged neglig......
-
O'Brien v. Rindskopf
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William H ... Killoren , Judge ... ... 624; Rayburn ... v. Phillips, 160 Mo.App. 534; Fay v. United Rys ... Co., 205 Mo.App. 521; Cornett v. Railroad, 158 ... Mo.App ... thus invades the province of the jury. Miller v ... Busey, 186 S.W. 983; Wright v. Fonda & Higgins, ... 44 Mo.App ... ...