Newlin v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
Citation | 121 S.W. 125,222 Mo. 375 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Decision Date | 01 July 1909 |
Parties | NEWLIN v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; H. L. McCune, Judge.
Action by Tinnie Newlin, for herself and as trustee for Earl and Ruby Newlin, against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
W. F. Evans, Dana, Cowherd & Ingraham, and Hunt C. Moore, for appellant. John M. Cleary, for respondent.
Leroy Newlin was the husband of Tinnie Newlin on August 15, 1905, and for eight months had been in defendant's employ as a switchman in its yards in Rosedale, Kan. Earl and Ruby are minors, and the only children born of the marriage. Leroy was killed while in the line of duty switching in said yards in trying to uncouple two moving freight cars; his foot being caught and held in an unblocked space between the main rail and a switch rail. The widow sued in Jackson county, Mo., charging negligence as follows:
The right of plaintiffs to recover for the wrongful death of Leroy Newlin arises on two Kansas statutes, viz., section 4871, par. 422, and section 4872, par. 422a, art. 18, c. 80, Gen. St. Kan. 1901. These are the same statutes on which plaintiffs relied in Lee v. Railroad, 195 Mo., loc. cit. 419, 92 S. W. 614, and Charlton v. Railroad, 200 Mo., loc. cit. 419, 98 S. W. 529, and are found there in full (q. v.). They will not be reproduced unless in the evolution of the case such course becomes necessary. Defendant answered in (1) a general denial; (2) a plea of contributory negligence of decedent; (3) an allegation that, if decedent was injured by the negligence of any one other than himself, it was that of persons who were fellow servants under the laws of the state of Kansas and such risk was assumed; (4) that under the laws of the state of Kansas (chapter 341, p. 566, Laws Kan. 1905) defendant was entitled to a notice in writing from plaintiff within eight months after the injury, stating the time and place thereof, and that no such notice had been given (the statute is pleaded, but need not be set forth here); (5) for a further defense defendant pleaded a general assumption of risk; and (6) for still another alleged that defendant's liability, if any, depended upon and is to be determined by the law in force at the time in Kansas, and, under such law, defendant is not liable. Plaintiffs replied as follows: etc. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $5,000, defendant appeals.
A group of questions are briefed and argued. For example: Whether the statute pleaded in the fourth paragraph of the answer and in the reply relates to liability under the fellow-servant law of Kansas alone, or covers the case stated in the petition for negligence of the master in not providing a reasonably safe field of operations. Again, defendant, to show nonliability, introduced sections of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure prescribing in what counties venue should be laid, and where suits should be brought against railway corporations for personal injuries, and counsel argue these statutes are part of the substantive law, and hence this suit was brought in Missouri in violation of those statutes. Contra, plaintiff's counsel argues that those statutes have no extraterritorial force or effect, that they cover mere adjective law and relate solely to procedure in suits in the state of Kansas — not elsewhere — and, if construed otherwise, would strike down a settled legislative policy of comity. Again, certain paper rules of defendant were put in evidence, and it was shown that decedent received them on entering its employ and contracted to observe them. These rules recognize and remark upon the dangers incident to switching and especially in uncoupling cars. One of them provides that switchmen "must be particular to notice the speed of the cars while moving, and, if at a dangerous rate, no attempt must be made to couple by going between them." It then (in a somewhat double way) goes on to state that it is dangerous to uncouple or to attempt to place links, pins, or knuckles while cars are in motion, "and is positively forbidden." To avoid this rule, plaintiffs rely upon a proved custom or usage in the Rosedale yards, long in vogue, whereby when trains were proceeding at slow speed (as was this) and, when the lift rod of an automatic car coupler would not work the pin (as did this), a switchman under the eye of his foreman,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mitchell v. J.A. Tobin Constr. Co.
...Re-Statement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, sec. 618, p. 735; 2 Beale on Conflict of Laws, secs. 401-2, p. 1322; Newlin v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., 222 Mo. 375, 391, 121 S.W. (1st) 125; McRoberts v. Natl. Zinc Co., 93 Kan. 364, 365, 144 Pac. 247, 248. (2) The Kansas Workmen's Compensation......
-
Burg v. Knox
...Co., 222 Mo. 375, 121 S.W. 125, to which case the Court en Banc made approving reference in the Grimm case. The limitation stated in the Newlin case S.W. l. c. 130) is: "No case under the lex loci, then no case under the lex fori; and the supplement, viz.: a case under the lex loci then a c......
-
State ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield
... ... Waldo C. Mayfield, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and His Successors, as Presiding Judge of Said Court, Respondent. State of Missouri ex rel. the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway ... the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Sec. 14, Mo. Code of ... Civil Procedure; Newlin v. The Railroad, 222 Mo ... 375, 121 S.W. 125; State ex rel. Walker v. State Board of ... Health, 61 S.W.2d 925; Cary v. Schmeltz, 141 ... ...
-
Meeker v. Union Electric Light & Power Company
...of negligence, but only enough of the acts of negligence charged to make a case. Van Horn v. Transit Co., 198 Mo. 481; Newlin v. Railroad, 222 Mo. 393; Gannon Gas Light Co., 145 Mo. 511; Moyer v. Railroad, 189 S.W. 842; Spalding v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 129 Mo.App. 607; Dutro v. Met. St. Ry. Co......