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

Decision Date05 July 1927
Docket NumberNo. 19787.,19787.
Citation297 S.W. 451
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesMYERSON v. PEOPLE'S MOTORBUS CO. OF ST. LOUIS et al.

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, named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Carter, Jones & Turney and Jams E. Garstang, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

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

BECKER, J.

The People's Motorbus Company of St. Louis brings this appeal from a judgment rendered against it and Rolla Wells, receiver of United Railways Company of St. Louis, resulting from an action by plaintiff for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained whilst a passenger in a motorbus, by reason of a collision between said motorbus and a street car. The appeal of Wells, receiver, etc., the other defendant below, is also pending here, being case No. 19851, 297 S. W. 455, 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. The petition alleges that whilst plaintiff was a passenger on a motorbus of the defendant motorbus company, there was a violent collision between said motorbus and one of the street cars then and there being operated by the defendant, Wells, receiver, etc.; that, as a direct result of said collision, she suffered severe, painful, and permanent injuries which were directly due to the negligence of the said motorbus company. The petition then further alleges that said collision was also directly due to the negligence of the said defendant Wells, receiver, etc., in that the motorman in charge of said street car, as the agent of the 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 defendant Wells, receiver, etc., was also negligent in that the motorman operating said street car, on his behalf, saw, or in the exercise of ordinary care could have seen, the said motorbus in a position of imminent danger from the forward movement of said street car in time, by the exercise of ordinary care, to have stopped said street car and to have thus 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 said collision as aforesaid.

Plaintiff herself testified that she got on an east-bound bus of the defendant motorbus company at Maryville and Delmar avenues, in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and she was accompanied by her sister-in-law and her 4 year old child; that there was one other person on the bus when they got in; the bus proceeded eastwardly on Delmar avenue and came to a stop at the east side of West gate avenue; that the bus stopped about 4 feet distant from the south curb line of Delmar avenue, but she did not know whether there were any automobiles parked alongside the curb; that, after the motorbus had thus been standing about one minute, taking on passengers, there was a crash, and the motorbus was suddenly pushed forward about the length of the bus, causing her to be thrown forward out of her seat and against the seat ahead of her and throwing her onto her knees between the seats; that when she had gotten to her feet she saw that a street car was right up against the back of the bus on the left side thereof, and the street car at the time was still pushing the bus forward; that prior to the collision she did not hear any gong or bell sounded by the street car; that the collision occurred at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon on a clear, dry day.

On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that Delmar avenue, at the place where the collision occurred, was wide enough for two automobiles to be parked abreast of each other next to the curb and yet permit street cars to pass by; that she was seated on a seat in the bus with her nephew next to the window and she next to the aisle; that she was seated in such a manner that she was facing forward and somewhat to the right; that she did not see the street car until after the collision; and that she did not know what the bus driver was doing or whether or not he gave any signal that he was going to stop the bus; that the only thing she did know was that the bus did not stop up next to the curb but stopped out in the street about four feet from the curb.

Plaintiff adduced one other witness, who testified as to the collision, namely, one Nelson, who testified that he was a student conductor on the motorbus in question, and that, when the bus was going to stop at the east side of West gate avenue, at its intersection with Delmar avenue, he raised his hand as a signal that the bus was going to stop, and noticed at that moment that the street car was about a block away, some 200 feet distant, having just started up and going about 12 to 15 miles an hour. He testified that Delmar avenue in and about the place of the collision was level, that there had been no rain that day, and that the tracks and street were dry. He further testified that the bus stopped with the left side of the bus about 6 inches over the south rail of the east-bound track of the street car; that the bus was facing east, parallel with the curb, and about 2 feet distant from some automobiles that were parked next to the curb; that there were four passengers waiting to board the bus and that three had gotten on before the street car, approaching from the rear, crashed into the bus; that from the time the bus came to a stop until the street car ran into the bus, from three-quarters to one minute had elapsed; that the bus was equipped with an automatic stop light signal which burned whenever the brakes of the bus were applied.

Plaintiff adduced a witness who, as an expert on the distance in which a street car could be stopped, testified that the type of street car with trailer attached, which ran into the bus, on a dry track, moving at the rate of 15 miles per hour, could be stopped in from 45 to 48 feet.

As to the testimony adduced on behalf of the motorbus company, one witness, a woman, testified she got on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • McCormick v. Lowe and Campbell Ath. Goods Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Septiembre 1940
    ...921; Threlkeld v. Wabash Ry. Co., 68 Mo. App. 127, 136; Lynch v. M.-K.-T., 333 Mo. 89, 61 S.W. (2d) 918; 22 C.J., 921; Myerson v. People's Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 451. (5) Plaintiff's expert witness was thoroughly qualified, he examined the very pole in question after the break, and properly......
  • Mickel v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1941
    ... ...           Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. James E ... McLaughlin , Judge ...           ... Gableman v ... Bolt, 336 Mo. 539, 80 S.W.2d 171; Myerson v. Peoples ... Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 451. (3) There was no reversible ... ...
  • McCormick v. Lowe & Campbell Athletic Goods Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 16 Septiembre 1940
    ... ... 569, 103 S.W.2d ... 900; Smith v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 123 S.W.2d ... 198; Baustain v. Young et al., 152 Mo. 317, ... M.-K.-T., 333 Mo. 89, 61 ... S.W.2d 918; 22 C. J., 921; Myerson v. People's ... Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 451. (5) Plaintiff's expert ... ...
  • Leaman v. Campbell 66 Exp. Truck Lines
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1947
    ... ... 182; Williamson v ... M., K. & T.R., 115 Mo.App. 72; Myerson v. Peoples ... Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 451. (4) The plaintiff was ... Sing ... v. St. Louis-S.F.R., 30 S.W.2d 37; McCullough v ... W.H. Lumber Co., 216 S.W. 803; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT