Rooker v. Deering Southwestern Ry. Co., No. 2687.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtFarrington
Citation206 Mo. App. 79,226 S.W. 69
Decision Date16 December 1920
Docket NumberNo. 2687.
PartiesROOKER v. DEERING SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.
226 S.W. 69
206 Mo. App. 79
ROOKER
v.
DEERING SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.
No. 2687.
Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.
December 16, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling H. McCarthy, Judge.

Action by Mattie Rooker against the Deering Southwestern Railway Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for appellant.

Mayes & Gossom, of Caruthersville, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.


This is a personal injury suit. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the trial court, from which defendant appeals. The case is here on the second appeal, and a statement of the facts surrounding the injury will be found in 204 S. W. 556.

On the second trial the plaintiff filed an amended petition, basing the ground of negligence causing her injury on a sudden jerk forward while she was standing on the platform preparing to alight from the train, which caused her to fall and be thrown and receive the injuries complained of.

There are several errors alleged. The first is that defendant's demurrer to the evidence should have been given. There was a clear-cut issue of fact on this and in the former trial, the plaintiff claiming that as she stood on the platform of the car waiting for the train to stop, so that she could get off, and while it was running very slowly, it suddenly lunged forward with an extraordinary and unusual jerk and threw her off, the defendant claiming that she fell in an attempt to alight while the train was yet moving. Plaintiff's version makes a question of fact for the jury.

It is contended that the following parts

226 S.W. 70

of instruction No. 1, given for plaintiff, is error:

"Then the court charges you that it became and was the duty of defendant to use that high degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence would use under like circumstances to well and safely carry plaintiff from Caruthersville on its said railroad on said train to the said station of Blazier" — citing Craton v. Huntzinger, 163 Mo. App. loc. cit. 721, 147 S. W. 512; Hurt v. S. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. loc. cit. 261-262, 7 S. W. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 374.

It will be seen on reference to these cases that the error condemned in them is not in this instruction. In the Craton Case the instruction made the defendant an absolute insurer, while he was only required to use reasonable efforts or such efforts as an ordinarily prudent person under like circumstances would use. In the Hurt Case the error found was that the instruction there told the jury that the duty rested on the employees to not only carry passengers to their destination, but to see that they were set down safely on the platform, while the law only required that after arriving at destination a reasonable opportunity be given for the passengers to get themselves down safely on the platform. The duty was broader than the law required, but, in the instruction in the case at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State v. Stogsdill, No. 29555.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1929
    ...did not cure the error. State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; State v. Davis, 225 S.W. 707; Kribs v. Light Co., 215 S.W. 762; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69. (12) The verdict of the jury was a chance verdict and not its deliberate judgment. It was the result of chance and self-imposed coercion and......
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...Reeves v. Lutz, 191 Mo. App. 550, 177 S.W. 764; Jackman v. Railroad, 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69; Egan v. United Rys., 227 S.W. 126; Clear v. Van Blarcum, 241 S.W. 81; Wair v. A.C. & F. Co., 285 S.W. 155; Mahaney v. K.C., Clay County &......
  • Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., No. 28067.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 13, 1929
    ...Jackmann v. Railway Co., 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 8 S.W. (2d) 77; Rooker v. Railway Co., 206 Mo. App. 79. (a) Jurors are quick to follow the court's attitude. Kribs v. Light Co., 215 S.W. 762; Dreyfus v. Railroad Co., 124 Mo. App. 585: Hutchins......
  • Parks v. Marshall, No. 27266.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 1929
    ...S.W. 933; Clark v. Railroad, 4 S.W. (2d) 843. The witness was not qualified to show he knew any acts, conduct, etc. Rookers v. Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 69; Kuehn v. Ritter, 233 S.W. 5. It is not pursued by any offer of proof. The purported offer of proof is in response to another question. Meyers ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State v. Stogsdill, No. 29555.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1929
    ...did not cure the error. State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; State v. Davis, 225 S.W. 707; Kribs v. Light Co., 215 S.W. 762; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69. (12) The verdict of the jury was a chance verdict and not its deliberate judgment. It was the result of chance and self-imposed coercion and......
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...Reeves v. Lutz, 191 Mo. App. 550, 177 S.W. 764; Jackman v. Railroad, 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Rooker v. Railroad, 226 S.W. 69; Egan v. United Rys., 227 S.W. 126; Clear v. Van Blarcum, 241 S.W. 81; Wair v. A.C. & F. Co., 285 S.W. 155; Mahaney v. K.C., Clay County & St.......
  • Nelson v. Heine Boiler Co., No. 28067.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 13, 1929
    ...Jackmann v. Railway Co., 187 S.W. 786; McElwain v. Dunham, 221 S.W. 773; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 8 S.W. (2d) 77; Rooker v. Railway Co., 206 Mo. App. 79. (a) Jurors are quick to follow the court's attitude. Kribs v. Light Co., 215 S.W. 762; Dreyfus v. Railroad Co., 124 Mo. App. 585: Hutchins......
  • Parks v. Marshall, No. 27266.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 1929
    ...S.W. 933; Clark v. Railroad, 4 S.W. (2d) 843. The witness was not qualified to show he knew any acts, conduct, etc. Rookers v. Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 69; Kuehn v. Ritter, 233 S.W. 5. It is not pursued by any offer of proof. The purported offer of proof is in response to another question. Meyers ......
  • 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