Rattan v. Central Electric Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 01 October 1906 |
Citation | 120 Mo. App. 270,96 S.W. 735 |
Parties | RATTAN v. CENTRAL ELECTRIC RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jno. G. Park, Judge.
Action by Gertrude Rattan against the Central Electric Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
John H. Lucas, Frank G. Johnson, and Henry S. Conrad, for appellant. Reed, Yates, Mastin & Howell, for respondent.
Suit for damages for personal injury. For convenience we adopt the statement of plaintiff setting out, in substance, her cause of action, viz.: The evidence of plaintiff tended to prove the allegations of her petition. The contention of the defendant is that plaintiff's theory of the occurrence is contradicted by the physical facts of the case. The plaintiff weighed about 100 pounds and was compelled to use a crutch in walking, the result of an injury she had suffered in her girlhood. She stated substantially that as she came to the step to alight she was facing west, and that she took hold of the handle on the right side of the car, put her left foot onto the edge or broken part of a piece of metal which projected up an inch or an inch and one-half and which pushed into the heel of her shoe, and that as she started to step to the ground the heel of her shoe was held by the projection, and she was thrown upon the street, and that the heel of her shoe remained fastened to the metal after she had fallen. The metal on the step was shown to be what was known as the "Mason safety tread," fastened to the top of the wooden step of the car. She was corroborated by other witnesses, to the effect that, while she was lying on the ground, her foot was still held fast by said projection, and that there was an indentation in the heel of her left shoe which might have been made by the projecting metal.
On cross-examination the plaintiff at first stated that the edges of the metal plate were projecting upward, and that they were not smooth. She was asked if the edges on the plate were smooth or otherwise. She answer: "No, sir; it was not smooth—kind of broken." She was then asked: "Was it an even surface on the edge of the plate, or not?" She answered: "Yes, I believe it was." Question: "Now what part of this plate was the piece that caught your shoe on?" Answer: "On the back part." Question: "On the back part?" Answer: "Yes, sir." The answers appear somewhat contradictory, but it is evident that plaintiff meant to say that the outer edge of the plate was smooth, but that the back edge was broken and rough. A step with a safety tread of the kind was brought into court, which appeared to be in good condition; but plaintiff and another witness testified that it was not the one in controversy. But certain of defendant's witnesses stated that it was the same. It appeared, however, that, if it was the same, it had been painted since the occurrence. One of defendant's witnesses described the plate in controversy as follows: The witness, who was a master mechanic, was asked: "What is the purpose of the lead being put in there? Answer:
We gather from the description that the metal plate in question was merely a frame adapted to the purpose of holding the lead in place; that the parts inclosing the lead are made of thin steel. If the lead should be worn or displaced, this thin frame would extend above the surface. We take it for granted that, as a general rule, all mechanical contrivances are liable to change and deterioration from use. And it is plain that the one in dispute is no exception to the rule. We think it possible that the lead in the metal frame had become worn or displaced so as to have left the thin edge of the plate extending above the surface in its worn state, and that thus exposed it would become broken, and in that condition have caught and held the heel of the plaintiff's shoe as detailed in her testimony. But it is insisted that if the occurrence, as plaintiff gave it, was not impossible, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Wells, 28495.
...1686, 1689; Thompson v. City of Lamar (Mo. Sup.), 17 S.W. (2d) 960, 973; Quirk v. Elevator Co., 126 Mo. 279, 293; Rattan v. Electric Railway Co., 120 Mo. App. 270, 280.] Having failed to ask for the giving of a special and definitive instruction, plaintiff will not be heard on appeal to com......
-
Thompson v. City of Lamar
...should ask for a special instruction defining the term. [38 Cyc. pp. 1686-1689; Quirk v. Elevator Co., 126 Mo. 279, 293; Rattan v. Railway Co., 120 Mo. App. 270, 280.] As used in the instruction, we think the terms, or words, criticised by appellant could not have been misunderstood by the ......
-
Smith v. Wells
... ... automobile in which plaintiff was riding was struck by a ... southbound electric street car, operated by defendant ... receiver, while the automobile was crossing over the west, ... Sup.), 17 S.W.2d 960, 973; [326 Mo. 543] ... Quirk v. Elevator Co., 126 Mo. 279, 293; Rattan ... v. Electric Railway Co., 120 Mo.App. 270, 280.] Having ... failed to ask for the giving of a ... ...
-
Thompson v. City of Lamar
...should ask for a special instruction defining the term. [38 Cyc. pp. 1686-1689; Quirk v. Elevator Co., 126 Mo. 279, 293; Rattan v. Railway Co., 120 Mo.App. 270, 280.] used in the instruction, we think the terms, or words, criticised by appellant could not have been misunderstood by the jury......