Radler v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1932
• Docket Number: No. 30074.,30074.
• Citation: 51 S.W.2d 1011
• Parties: JOHN RADLER v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 S.W.2d 1011

JOHN RADLER v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 30074.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division 2.

July 1, 1932.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Darius A. Brown, Judge.

AFFIRMED (on condition).

E.T. Miller, Henry S. Conrad, L.E. Durham and Hale Houts for appellant.

(1) The court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of all the evidence. (a) In order for plaintiff to recover it was necessary that there be substantial evidence that plaintiff was engaged in setting the brake and that while so engaged the brake chain pulled loose, permitted the wheel to turn freely, and thereby caused plaintiff to fall from the top of the car. Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C., sec. 11; Dedinger v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 39 Fed. (2d) 799; Minneapolis & St. L. Railroad v. Gotchell, 244 U.S. 66; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway v. Smith, 42 Fed. (2d) 111; McAllister v. Railway, 25 S.W. (2d) 795; Burnett v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 33 Fed. (2d) 680; Kuhnhein v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 38 Fed. (2d) 1015; Patton v. Texas, etc., Ry., 179 U.S. 663; Gulf, etc., Railroad v. Wells, 275 U.S. 459; Atlantic Coast Line v. Davis, 279 U.S. 34; Chicago, Mil. & St. P. Ry. v. Coogen, 271 U.S. 476; Black v. Black, 231 N.W. 797; Reap v. Hines, 273 Fed. 88; Roscoe v. Ry., 202 Mo. 587; Porter v. St. Joseph Ry. Co., 311 Mo. 66; Smith v. Motorbus Co., 296 S.W. 457; Degonia v. Railroad, 224 Mo. 589; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 653; Kitchen v. Mfg. Co., 20 S.W. (2d) 682; Krelitz v. Calcaterro, 33 S.W. (2d) 911. (b) As a matter of law there was no substantial evidence that the brake chain pulled loose and gave way. Burnett v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 33 Fed. (2d) 579; Kuhnhein v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 38 Fed. (2d) 1015; Schupback v. Meshevesky, 300 S.W. 467; Weltmer v. Bishop, 171 Mo. 116; Quock Ting v. U.S., 140 U.S. 420; F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 41 Fed. (2d) 347; Reiss v. Reardon, 18 Fed. (2d) 202; United States v. Sixty Barrels of Wine, 225 Fed. 852; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. O'Neill, 186 Fed. 15; 4 C.J. 849, 857, 861; 10 R.C.L. 1008, 1009; 8 A.L.R. 2798, note; 21 A.L.R. 141, 147, 153, note; Highfill v. Wells, 16 S.W. (2d) 103; Cadwell v. Wilson Stove & Mfg. Co., 238 S.W. 417; Alexander v. Railway, 289 Mo. 621; M.K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Collier, 157 Fed. 353; Dyrez v. Railroad, 238 Mo. 48; Sexton v. Railway, 245 Mo. 272; Haviland v. Railway, 172 Mo. 115; Petty v. Railroad, 179 Mo. 678; Roseman v. Railway, 251 S.W. 106; Weltmer v. Bishop, 171 Mo. 116; Nugent v. Milling Co., 131 Mo. 253; Gurley v. Railway, 104 Mo. 233; Daniels v. Railroad, 177 Mo. App. 281; Scroggins v. Railway, 138 Mo. App. 215; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. v. Britain, 190 Fed. 317; Lange v. Railroad, 151 Mo. App. 505; Zalotuchin v. Railway, 127 Mo. App. 584; Spiro v. Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 250; Kibble v. Railroad, 285 Mo. 619; American Car & Foundry Co. v. Kindermann, 216 Fed. 502; Seiwell v. Hines, 116 Atl. 139; Emerich Furniture Co. v. Dyrnes, 87 N.E. 1042; Waldmann v. Construction Co., 289 Mo. 638. (c) Since the car was a foreign car, plaintiff's case was further insufficient in that there was no evidence of the negligent failure to inspect for and discover any defect in the brake. Rupert v. C.M. & St. P. Ry., 232 N.W. 550 (cert. denied by the Sup. Ct. of the U.S., 51 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488). (2) The court erred in excluding evidence offered by defendant. (a) The court erred in excluding testimony of defendant's witness Herndon. Partello v. Railroad, 217 Mo. 656; Rearden v. Railroad, 215 Mo. 138; Morris v. Railroad, 239 Mo. 711; Griffith v. Continental Casualty Co., 299 Mo. 443; Godfrey v. Light & Power Co., 299 Mo. 488; Osborne v. Wells, 211 S.W. 891; Haney v. Benefit Assn., 34 S.W. (2d) 1053; 40 Cyc. 2443; Hill v. Harvey, 201 S.W. 537; 22 C.J. 198; Crawford v. Stockyards Co., 215 Mo. 416; Powell v. Railroad, 229 Mo. 273; Bleish v. Rhodes, 242 S.W. 973; Raynolds v. Casualty Co., 274 Mo. 104; Lake Superior Loader Co. v. Lead & Zinc Co., 305 Mo. 141; Grismond v. Kendrick, 29 S.W. (2d) 1108; Taylor v. Penquite, 35 Mo. App. 402; The Nelson Distributing Co. v. Hubbard, 53 Mo. App. 27; Crabtree v. Vanhoozier, 53 Mo. App. 410; Hackney v. Hargrove, 259 S.W. 496; Loveland v. Arnold, 261 S.W. 742; Growther v. Gibson, 19 Mo. 367; May v. Railroad, 284 Mo. 529; Nahorski v. Railway, 310 Mo. 238; Randol v. Klines, Inc., 18 S.W. (2d) 507. (b) The court erred in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the testimony of claim agent Pollard that the witness Artherton did not tell him that he knew the condition of the brake. Porter Motor Corp. v. United States Casualty Co., 18 S.W. (2d) 137; 40 Cyc. 2707, note 56; State v. Purdin, 68 Mo. 99; Spohn v. Railway, 122 Mo. 21; 40 Cyc. 2735, 2737; State v. Carter, 259 Mo. 357; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 120; Sullivan v. Ry., 133 Mo. 6; Case v. Railway, 30 S.W. (2d) 1069, Syl. 7; 40 Cyc. 2705. (3) The court erred in admitting evidence offered by plaintiff. (a) The court erred in permitting plaintiff's counsel to introduce in evidence the subpoena which had been served upon the witness Gleason. Ferry v. O'Neill, 149 Mo. 467; Shull v. Boyd, 251 Mo. 473; 4 C.J. 974; Lewellen v. Haynie, 287 S.W. 634; Ex parte Dick Bros. v. Ellison, 287 Mo. 154; Maurizi v. Western Coal & Mining Co., 11 S.W. (2d) 275; Nolen v. Construction Co., 29 S.W. (2d) 219; Sexton v. Lockwood, 207 S.W. 858; Summers v. Tarpley, 208 S.W. 266. (b) The court erred in admitting testimony of Dr. Geraughty. Holloway v. Kansas City, 184 Mo. 39; Aronovitz v. Arky, 219 S.W. 624; Magill v. Boatmen's Bank, 288 Mo. 499; Kinchlow v. Railroad Co., 264 S.W. 421; Gibler v. Railroad Co., 129 Mo. App. 104; Freeman v. Insurance Co., 196 Mo. App. 383; Borowski v. Biscuit Co., 229 S.W. 428; Hutchinson v. Railway, 288 S.W. 94; Murphy v. Ry., 221 Mo. App. 675; Mendenhall v. Springfield Traction Co., 26 S.W. (2d) 52. (4) The verdict was excessive. Young v. Rust, 268 Mo. 625; Kibble v. Railroad, 285 Mo. 603; Vaughan v. Railway, 18 S.W. (2d) 66; Rose v. Railway, 315 Mo. 1198; Foster v. Davis, 252 S.W. 437; Leighton v. Davis, 260 S.W. 989; Busch v. Railroad, 17 S.W. (2d) 341; Lebrecht v. United Railways, 237 S.W. 114; Bante v. Wells, 34 S.W. (2d) 980; Sallee v. Railway, 12 S.W. (2d) 483; Spencer v. Railroad, 317 Mo. 504; Sallee v. Railway, 12 S.W. (2d) 481; Maher v. Coal & Coke Co., 20 S.W. (2d) 895; Fitzsimmons v. Railway, 294 Mo. 551.

Madden, Freeman & Madden for respondent.

(1) Appellant's purported assignments, and each of them, are insufficient under Rule 15, and hence are not reviewable. Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Stephens, 306 Mo. 525; Matthews v. Karnes, 9 S.W. (2d) 631; Hunt v. Hunt, 270 S.W. 369; Campbell v. Campbell, 20 S.W. (2d) 657; State v. Judge, 285 S.W. (Mo.) 718, 721; Bradbury v. Crites, 281 S.W. 731; Seewald v. Gentry, 286 S.W. 454; State v. Preslar, 290 S.W. 144; Nevins v. Gilliland, 234 S.W. 820; Barnett v. Hastain, 256 S.W. 753. (2) Appellant's demurrer was properly overruled. This purported assignment is not reviewable. (a) The evidence to be considered (this being solely respondent's evidence), and the required quantum of evidence, upon demurrer. Dixon v. Construction Co., 318 Mo. 61; Clark v. Bridge Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 151; Goucan v. Cement Co., 317 Mo. 929. (b) The issue of fact upon demurrer in the instant case is this: Was there any evidence that the brake chain in question pulled loose and gave way, causing the brake wheel to whirl and respondent to be thrown? Railroad v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66; McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co., 25 S.W. (2d) 791; Didinger v. Railroad, 39 Fed. (2d) 798; Cochran v. Railroad, 31 Fed. (2d) 769; Railway Co. v. Smith, 42 Fed. (2d) 111; Railroad Co. v. Howell, 6 Fed. (2d) 784, certiorari denied, 268 U.S. 695; Payne v. Connor, 274 Fed. 497; Thayer v. Railroad, 185 Pac. 542; Railroad v. Campbell, 241 U.S. 497; Railway Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33; Burlington v. U.S., 220 U.S. 559; Railway Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 294; Delk v. Railroad, 220 U.S. 586; Railway Co. v. U.S., 29 Fed. (2d) 568; Railroad v. Beltz, 10 Fed. (2d) 74; Railway Co. v. Eisenhart, 280 Fed. 271; Woods v. Terminal Railway Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 922; Wolfe v. Payne, 294 Mo. 185; Callicotte v. Railway Co., 274 Mo. 689; Page v. Payne, 293 Mo. 600; Moore v. Railway Co., 268 Mo. 31; Carter v. Railroad, 307 Mo. 595; Tyon v. Wabash, 207 Mo. App. 338; Sallee v. Railway Co., 12 S.W. (2d) 476. (c) The evidence is manifestly sufficient. Woods v. Terminal Railway Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 922; Laudwig v. Power & Light Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 625; Clark v. Bridge Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 152; 10 R.C.L. 1008, 1009; Doyle v. Terminal Railway Co., 31 S.W. (2d) 1012; Kiefer v. St. Joseph, 243 S.W. 107. (d) The duty imposed upon appellant under the Federal Safety Appliance Act was absolute irrespective of whether the car in question was or was not owned by appellant. Lovett v. Terminal Railway Co., 295 S.W. 92; Page v. Payne, 293 Mo. 603; 45 U.S.C.A. sec. 11; Sallee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 12 S.W. (2d) 476; 2 Roberts Federal Liabilities of Carriers (2 Ed.) sec. 666, p. 1265; United States v. Railway Co., 162 Fed. 781; Tyon v. Wabash, 207 Mo. App. 338; United States v. Railway Co., 287 Fed. 780; United States v. Railway Co., 30 Fed. (2d) 154; Railroad Co. v. United States, 211 Fed. 12; Johnson v. Great Northern, 178 Fed. 643; United States v. Southern Railway, 135 Fed. 122. (3) Respondent's Instruction P-II was proper. This purported assignment is not reviewable. The instruction was proper. (4) The rulings of the court relative to the testimony of the witnesses Herndon and Pollard are not reviewable, were proper, and in no event can constitute error. This purported assignment, and each subdivision thereof, is not reviewable. (a) Rulings of the court relative to the testimony of the witness Herndon. The ruling of the court relative to the alleged opinion that respondent was intoxicated at a time prior to the accident cannot constitute error. (b) The alleged opinion was...