Olsen v. Citizens' Ry. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation152 Mo. 426,54 S.W. 470
PartiesOLSEN v. CITIZENS' RY. CO.
Decision Date28 November 1899
54 S.W. 470
152 Mo. 426
OLSEN
v.
CITIZENS' RY. CO.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
November 28, 1899.

STREET RAILROADS — INJURIES TO PASSENGERS — COLLISION — NEGLIGENCE — THIRD PERSONS — CONDUCTORS — INCOMPETENT EMPLOYÉS — EVIDENCE — PRESUMPTIONS — INSTRUCTIONS.

1. A street-car passenger may recover for injuries occasioned by a collision with a hook and ladder wagon caused by a want of a high degree of care by the employés in charge of the car, though negligence of the driver of the wagon contributed to cause the accident.

2. A street-railroad company may be liable to a passenger for injuries resulting from a collision caused by the conductor's want of a high degree of care in preventing a collision with a hook and ladder wagon going to a fire, as well as a want of a high degree of care by the gripman.

3. A street-railway company is liable for injuries to passengers caused by its failure to employ a skillful conductor and gripman.

4. The fact of a collision by a street car with an approaching hook and ladder wagon is sufficient proof of negligence to entitle a passenger free from negligence to recover for injuries caused thereby, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

5. A refusal of an instruction is proper, where an instruction is given which defines the law on the subject to which the request is directed as favorably for the requesting party as he could ask.

6. In an action by a street-car passenger for injuries caused by a collision with a hook and ladder wagon, evidence as to how far a gong on the wagon could be heard is admissible, where defendant claims that the collision was caused by the gripman's failure to hear any gong, and there was evidence that the gong was sounded.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; P. R. Flitcraft, Judge.

Action by Louisa Olsen against the Citizens' Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's cars on its street railway on Morgan street, in the city of St. Louis, and was injured by a collision between said car and a wagon of the fire department of said city on its way to a fire. No claim is made that the damages she recovered are excessive. The evidence, in brief, was to the effect that, as the car on which plaintiff was riding was moving east on Morgan street, an engine of the fire department was going north to a fire on Ninth street. The engine passed Morgan street safely, and was followed by a hook and ladder wagon, which was being driven very rapidly, as is usual with such wagons going to a fire. As this wagon proceeded North on Ninth street the gong on it was sounded constantly, and the evidence for plaintiff tended to show very strongly that it could be heard several blocks, and was heard by plaintiff, sitting in the car, when at or near Tenth street. There was also much evidence that the people in the street and on the sidewalks screamed at the motorman, and made gestures and signs to stop, whereas defendant's evidence tended to prove that the gong was not sounded, and the people did not halloo to the motorman. He did not stop, and when he saw the wagon approaching he undertook to avoid a collision by running his car at full speed across the intersection of the streets ahead of the approaching wagon; and the driver of the wagon, seeing the car, undertook to swing around its rear to the west, but failed, and the pole of his wagon struck the car in which plaintiff was seated, about three feet from the rear, crushed through the sides of the car, and struck plaintiff as she sat on her seat, and seriously injured her. The pole of the wagon broke off, and one of the horses fell down. Defendant insisted that it was the fault of the teamster on the hook and ladder wagon which caused the collision. It complains of the instructions given and refused, and the examination of these will determine the merits of this appeal.

Smith P. Galt, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for respondent.

GANTT, P. J. (after stating the facts).


The following instruction is challenged as serious error: "(1) The court instructs the jury that the defendant, by its servants in charge of its

54...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Brancato v. Trimble, No. 29147.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 27, 1929
    ...203; Brown v. Railroad, 256 Mo. 522; Gibson v. Wells, 258 S.W. 2; Stauffer v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 243 Mo. 305; Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426; Mayne v. K.C. Rys. Co., 229 S.W. 386; Smith v. Motorbus Co., 296 S.W. 456; Stegman v. Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 189; Dougherty v. Railroad, 81 Mo......
  • Hesemann v. May Dept. Stores Co., No. 21233.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1931
    ...S.W. 178; Reel v. Consolidated Inv. Co. (Mo. Sup.), 236 S.W. 43; Orcutt v. Century Building Co., 214 Mo. 35; Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426; Cecil v. Wells, 214 Mo. App. 193. The objection that, although the instruction in its opening sentence requires the jury to base its finding o......
  • Zichler v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., No. 30789.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1933
    ...1; Cecil v. Wells, 259 S.W. 844; Stauffer v. Railroad, 243 Mo. 305; Clark v. C. & A. Railroad Co., 127 Mo. 197; Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426; Yates v. United Rys. Co., 222 S.W. 1034; Nagel v. United Rys. Co., 169 Mo. App. 284; Augustus v. Ry. Co., 153 Mo. App. 572, 134 S.W. 22; Wi......
  • Frandeka v. St. Louis Public Service Co., No. 41612
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 13, 1950
    ...upon an emergency run. He had the right of way and was under a duty to answer the alarm with promptness. Olsen v. Citizens' R. Co., 152 Mo. 426, 54 S.W. 470, 471; Michael v. Kansas City Western R. Co., 161 Mo.App. 53, 143 S.W. 67, 69; Green v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 165 Mo.App. 14, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • State ex rel. Brancato v. Trimble, No. 29147.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 27, 1929
    ...203; Brown v. Railroad, 256 Mo. 522; Gibson v. Wells, 258 S.W. 2; Stauffer v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 243 Mo. 305; Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426; Mayne v. K.C. Rys. Co., 229 S.W. 386; Smith v. Motorbus Co., 296 S.W. 456; Stegman v. Motorbus Co., 297 S.W. 189; Dougherty v. Railroad, 81 Mo......
  • Hesemann v. May Dept. Stores Co., No. 21233.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1931
    ...S.W. 178; Reel v. Consolidated Inv. Co. (Mo. Sup.), 236 S.W. 43; Orcutt v. Century Building Co., 214 Mo. 35; Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426; Cecil v. Wells, 214 Mo. App. 193. The objection that, although the instruction in its opening sentence requires the jury to base its finding o......
  • Zichler v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., No. 30789.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1933
    ...1; Cecil v. Wells, 259 S.W. 844; Stauffer v. Railroad, 243 Mo. 305; Clark v. C. & A. Railroad Co., 127 Mo. 197; Olsen v. Citizens Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 426; Yates v. United Rys. Co., 222 S.W. 1034; Nagel v. United Rys. Co., 169 Mo. App. 284; Augustus v. Ry. Co., 153 Mo. App. 572, 134 S.W. 22; Wi......
  • Frandeka v. St. Louis Public Service Co., No. 41612
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 13, 1950
    ...upon an emergency run. He had the right of way and was under a duty to answer the alarm with promptness. Olsen v. Citizens' R. Co., 152 Mo. 426, 54 S.W. 470, 471; Michael v. Kansas City Western R. Co., 161 Mo.App. 53, 143 S.W. 67, 69; Green v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 165 Mo.App. 14, 1......
  • 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