Myerson v. People's Motorbus Co. of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 05 July 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19851.,19851.
• Citation: 297 S.W. 455
• Parties: MYERSON v. PEOPLE'S MOTORBUS CO. OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

297 S.W. 455

MYERSON v. PEOPLE'S MOTORBUS CO. OF ST. LOUIS et al.

No. 19851.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

July 5, 1927.

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Helen Myerson against the People's Motorbus Company of St. Louis and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Rolla Wells, receiver of the United Railways Company of St. Louis; appeals. Affirmed.

Charles W. Bates, T. E. Francis, and John F. Evans, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Goodman & Stephenson and Henry S. Cooke, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

Rolla Wells, receiver of United Railways Company of St. Louis, a corporation, brings this appeal from a judgment rendered against it and the People's Motorbus Company of St. Louis, a corporation, resulting from an action by plaintiff for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while a passenger on a motorbus, by reason of a two-ear train of the street railway company colliding with the rear end of said motorbus. The appeal of the motorbus company, the other defendant, is also pending here, being cause No. 19787, 297 S. W. 451, and will be disposed of in a separate opinion.

Plaintiff's petition alleges general negligence as against the motorbus company and specific negligence against the street railway company, in that the motorman in charge of the street car, as agent of said Wells, receiver, etc., operated the same at a negligently rapid and dangerous rate of speed so as, under the circumstances, to unreasonably endanger the safety of other persons and vehicles then and there in the public street and highway, and that the said motorman was further negligent in operating said street car, in that he saw, or in the exercise of ordinary care could have seen, the motorbus on which plaintiff was riding in a position of imminent peril from the forward movement of the said street car in time, by the exercise of ordinary care, to have stopped the street car and thus to have avoided said collision, after the said motorman saw, or by the exercise of a reasonable degree of care could have seen, the dangerous situation, yet said motorman, after he saw said danger, failed to exercise ordinary care to avoid a collision with said bus.

The answer of the said street railway company was a general denial.

The testimony adduced on behalf of plaintiff and that of the codefendant motorbus company tended to show that plaintiff was a passenger on a motorbus running east along Delmar avenue in the city of St. Louis; that the bus came to a stop for the purpose of letting on passengers; about 25 feet east of the east line of West gate avenue where it intersects with said Delmar avenue; that there were automobiles parked along the curb on the south side of Delmar avenue so that the motorbus stopped with its left side either on the south rail of the east-bound street car tracks, or so close thereto that an east-bound car on said tracks could not pass the bus; that, when the bus came to a stop, the regular conductor standing on the rear platform of the bus raised his hand as a signal to the motorman of the approaching street car which was...