Ruebsam v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1904
• Citation: 108 Mo. App. 437,83 S.W. 984
• Parties: RUEBSAM v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

83 S.W. 984

108 Mo. App. 437

RUEBSAM v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 29, 1904.

CARRIERS — INJURY TO PASSENGER — EJECTION FROM STREET CAR—COMPLAINT—MOTION—INSTRUCTION—STATUTES—CONSTRUCTION.

1. Rev. St. 1899, § 592, provides that the complaint shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action without unnecessary repetition, and section 629, providing that, in the construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations shall be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, does not affect the fundamental requirements of good pleading. Hence a complaint containing indefinite and obscure allegations and legal conclusions is subject to attack by motion to make more specific.

2. In an action against a carrier for injury to plaintiff while a passenger, where the petition charged that after plaintiff had paid his fare the "car proceeded to a point near the new City Hospital, where it was stopped by a blockade, and plaintiff, with other fellow passengers, was transferred to" another line operated by defendant, and that after plaintiff had entered the car on that line, "and was lawfully on the car, the conductor in charge assaulted him," it was error to deny defendant's motion to make the petition more specific as to the manner in which the transfer to the second car was effected, and the facts under which he claimed to be lawfully on the car.

3. In an action against a carrier for ejection of a passenger, where the complaint embraced no charge of want of care by the conductor, but alleged that plaintiff's expulsion was wantonly effected, it was error to charge that if the jury found that the conductor used unnecessary force, and "carelessly" or wantonly injured plaintiff, their verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Edward J. Ruebsam against the St. Louis Transit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

In this action, after formal allegations of defendant's corporate existence as a common carrier, the petition charged that at about 7 o'clock p. m. of April 2, 1903, plaintiff got on a car of defendant at Sixth and Pine streets, in the city of St. Louis, to travel thereon to his destination, Arsenal street and January avenue, and upon entering such car paid to the conductor in charge the sum of five cents, the usual and regular fare for a continuous passage; that such car proceeded to a point near the new City Hospital, when it was stopped by a blockade, and plaintiff, with other fellow passengers, was transferred to the Fourth street line operated by defendant; that after he had entered the Fourth street car, and was lawfully on such car, the conductor in charge assaulted him, catching him with both hands by his wrists, and unlawfully, wrongfully, and forcibly dragged him to the rear platform of the car, and stopped the car, and with great force and violence threw plaintiff off the car, causing him to strike the street with great force and violence, to his serious injury as detailed. The petition further set forth that, at the time the said assault was unlawfully made on plaintiff by the said conductor, plaintiff was lawfully on the car, deporting himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, and had paid his fare for a continuous passage on defendant's line of railway, and was in exercise of ordinary care, and that the injuries received by plaintiff were directly caused by the unlawful, wrongful, and wanton acts of defendant by its agent and servant in charge of such car. Defendant assailed this pleading by a motion to make more definite and certain that portion which recited that, when the car on which plaintiff had taken passage reached a point near the City Hospital, the car was blockaded, and he was transferred to the Fourth street line operated by defendant, on the ground that such paragraph failed to inform defendant at whose direction or by whose request he was transferred to the Fourth street line, and was so indefinite as not to advise defendant whether plaintiff had...