Parris v. Deering Southwester Ry. Co.

Decision Date18 January 1919
Docket NumberNo. 2180.,2180.
Citation203 Mo. App. 182,208 S.W. 97
PartiesPARRIS v. DEERING SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; S. H. McCarty, Judge.

Action by W. H. Parris against the Deering Southwestern Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

C. G. Shepard, of Caruthersville, for appellant.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiff, appellant, instituted suit against the defendant, alleging that he was a passenger on one of defendant's trains, and that he boarded the same at Ward avenue, in the city of Caruthersville, Mo., and shortly after the train started to move the conductor in charge of the train willfully, maliciously, and wantonly assaulted plaintiff without any cause or provocation on the part of plaintiff; that at the time he was assaulted plaintiff's back was turned to the conductor, and he had no knowledge there was an assault about to be made upon him; that he struck him several times over the head with a "billy," causing severe and lasting wounds on and about his head. Judgment was asked for $1,000 compensatory damages and $5,000 exemplary damages.

The answer of the defendant denies that the conductor in charge of the train willfully, maliciously, and wantonly assaulted plaintiff, and, further answering, charges that plaintiff was at the time on said train, was drunk and disorderly, and was using loud, boisterous and indecent language in the presence of the passengers on said train, that the conductor, as was his duty, tried to quiet the plaintiff, and asked him to sit down and be quiet, but plaintiff refused, and continued his loud and boisterous conduct, to the annoyance and disturbance of the passengers, and at the same time had a large pocketknife, and that no one could make him sit down, and that, without provocation or cause, the plaintiff struck the defendant, who thereupon struck plaintiff, causing his alleged injury, and that the striking by the conductor was done under the necessity of self-defense, and that no more force was used than was necessary, and that all of it took place while the conductor was endeavoring to quiet plaintiff and cause him to sit down and cease his disturbance.

There was a trial by a jury, which rendered. a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff, appellant, merely complains of certain instructions given. It is conceded that there was evidence to sustain both the claim of the plaintiff and the defense of the railroad company. The appellant therefore merely brings the record proper and the instructions complained of to this court for review. The error complained of is contained in several of the instructions, but especially predominates in instruction No. 2, given on behalf of the defendant, which is as follows, we having italicized that portion complained of by appellant:

"You are further instructed that, if you find and believe from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff took passage on defendant's train as testified to in this case, and that the plaintiff was rude and disorderly on the train, and that he was using indecent and boisterous language in the presence and hearing of the other passengers, then the court instructs you that it was the duty of the defendant's conductor and brakeman in charge of said train to use whatever force that was necessary to quiet plaintiff and to prevent him being disorderly and boisterous on the train, and to prevent him disturbing the passengers on the train, and if you further find and believe that the defendant's conductor attempted to perform his duties in this respect as aforesaid, and that the plaintiff had a pocketknife in his hand and assaulted or attempted to assault or strike said conductor, and that the conductor thereupon struck and hit plaintiff to defend himself and to prevent plaintiff from disturbing the passengers on the train, then the plaintiff cannot recover in this case, and your verdict must be for the defendant."

It will be seen at a glance on reading this instruction that the jury were told that under the law, where a passenger breaches the rules of the company and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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