Mitchell v. United Railways Co.
Decision Date | 14 May 1907 |
Citation | 102 S.W. 661,125 Mo. App. 1 |
Parties | MITCHELL v. UNITED RAILWAYS CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.
Action by Joseph C. Mitchell against the United Railways Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
On December 16, 1904, plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's cars traveling north on Broadway, in the city of St. Louis. He got into an altercation with a conductor on the car, by whom he was assaulted. The action is to recover compensatory and punitive damages for the assault. The answer was a general denial.
It appears there were two conductors on the car, one a new man whom the other was "breaking in." The new man was collecting fares and the other was attending to the bell, giving signals to start and stop the car. Plaintiff did not know there was more than one conductor on the car, and supposed there was but one. He took a seat near the front end of the car, and, when the conductor came around collecting fares, plaintiff testified he handed him a 25-cent piece (the fare was five cents), and the conductor undertook to hand him two dimes in change by dropping them into his hand. One of the dimes fell on the floor. The conductor looked for it, and then went to the back end of the car. Plaintiff testified he looked for the dime, but could not find it. In a short time the other conductor came through the car. Supposing him to be the one who collected his fare, plaintiff stopped him, and testified to the following conversation: Plaintiff had his eye dressed at a nearby dispensary. He testified that his eye hurt him and he could not see out of it, and the evidence shows it was badly swollen and was black for two or three weeks. Plaintiff was 76 years old, but was able, as he stated, to push the conductor down between two seats with force sufficient to break the glass out of the adjoining window. The following appears in plaintiff's cross-examination: George Hanks, the conductor who collected plaintiff's fare, in respect to making the change, said: Witness gave the following version of the difficulty: Alexander Mocobey, the conductor with whom the difficulty was had, testified as follows in regard thereto: Witness continued as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Village of Koshkonong v. Boak
... ... 820; St. Louis v ... Wright Contracting Co., 210 Mo. 491, 109 S.W. 6; ... Mitchell v. United Rys. Co., 125 Mo.App. 1, 102 S.W ... 661; and Fink v. Railroad, 161 Mo.App. 314, 143 ... ...
-
Pacelli v. Peoples Railway Company
... ... Rupert, 23 ... Pa. 523; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Myzell, 87 Ark. 123, ... 112 S.W. 203; Mitchell v. United R. Co., 125 Mo.App ... 1, 102 S.W. 661 ... 4. If ... the jury believe that ... ...
-
Green v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
... ... which, in law, deprived him of the right to recover for ... humiliation. "To the willing mind there is no ... injury." Brenner v. Jonesboro, etc., Railroad, ... 82 Ark. 128, 130, 100 S.W. 893, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1060; ... Cincinnati, etc., Railroad v. Cole, 29 Ohio St. 126, ... 134; Mitchell v. United Rys. Co., 125 Mo.App. 1. (4) ... Plaintiff's instruction No. 3, defining the measure of ... damages, is erroneous, for the reason that it allowed a ... recovery for exemplary or punitive damages, notwithstanding ... plaintiff had no right to remain on the car and his ejection ... ...
-
Pacelli v. People's Ry. Co.
... ... Rupert, 23 Pa. 523; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Myzell, 87 Ark. 123, 112 S. W. 203; Mitchell v. United R. Co., 125 Mo. App. 1, 102 S. W. 661 ... 4. If the jury believe that ... ...