Muirhead v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1891
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MUIRHEAD v. HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO.

15 S.W. 530

103 Mo. 251

MUIRHEAD v. HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 9, 1891.

INJURY TO RAILROAD EMPLOYE — NEGLIGENCE.

1. Tabler v. Railway Co., (1887,) 93 Mo. 79, 5 S. W. Rep. 810, followed.

2. It is the duty of a railway company to furnish reasonably safe appliances, cars, and couplings for use by its employes.

3. The use of a heavy switch rope for coupling cars was not, as a matter of law, negligence in this case.

(Syllabus by Judge.)

Appeal from circuit court, Linn county; G. D. BURGESS, Judge.

This is an action by a plaintiff, who at the time was in defendant's employ, to recover for personal injuries sustained by alleged negligence of defendant, whereby a bridge on defendant's railway line is said to have fallen. The case has been certified to the supreme court on a division of opinion among the judges of the Kansas City court of appeals. 31 Mo. App. 578. Defendant appealed from a verdict and judgment in the trial court for $500.

Strong & Mosman and Vinton Pike, for appellant.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

The case involves a consideration of the identical facts, and in the main an application of the same general principles, as those announced in the recent decision in Tabler v. Railway Co., (1887,) 93 Mo. 79, 5 S. W. Rep. 810. Plaintiff's injuries were sustained in the same accident described in that opinion. The second instruction given at the trial of this action is substantially, and almost literally, the same as the one criticised and declared erroneous in that case. Nothing has been suggested on this hearing to avoid the effect of the error then pointed out. The defendant was bound to furnish reasonably safe and suitable appliances, cars, and couplings for use in the train upon which plaintiff was directed to ride; but the fact that a heavy switch rope for coupling between cars was used on the occasion in question, instead of the usual draw-head, was not, as a matter of law, a failure on defendant's part to exercise ordinary care in the circumstances. But it is unnecessary to repeat the views expressed in the case cited. The reference to the former opinion (which we regard as decisive of this appeal) will suffice. The points of criticism upon other instructions can be avoided at the next trial. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded; all the judges of the division concurring.