Snider v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1904
• Citation: 83 S.W. 530,108 Mo. App. 234
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: SNIDER v. CHICAGO & A. RY. CO. et al.

83 S.W. 530

108 Mo. App. 234

SNIDER v. CHICAGO & A. RY. CO. et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 15, 1904.

CARRIER — INJURY TO PASSENGER — STREET CAR — COLLISION WITH RAILROAD TRAIN — RAILROADS — CROSSING ACCIDENT — AUTHORITY OF EMPLOYÉ — INSTRUCTIONS — VERDICT — AMOUNT — APPEAL — NEGLIGENCE — FINDING — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

1. In an action against a railroad and a street railroad for injuries sustained by plaintiff while a passenger of the street railroad, resulting from a collision at a crossing over the railroad tracks, where there was positive testimony that one who was acting as a switchman gave the motorman on the street car a signal to cross the railroad tracks, which he proceeded to do, and the collision followed, and other evidence that defendant's yard conductor, who was handling the railroad train, was asked by the motorman if he could cross, when the yard conductor said, "Yes; come ahead," a demurrer to the evidence by the railroad was properly refused.

2. A street railroad owes to its passengers a very high degree of care and foresight.

3. Where the servants of a railroad, acting within the scope of their authority, prior to the collision of a train with a street car, signaled the motorman in charge of the street car to cross the railroad tracks, and in doing so acted negligently, and thereby directly contributed to the collision and injuries to a passenger, the passenger has a cause of action against the railroad for the injuries suffered.

4. In an action against a railroad and a street railroad for injuries sustained while a passenger of the street railroad, resulting from a collision between the street car and a train, where there was evidence that a yard conductor of the railroad, who was superintending the making up of the trains in the railroad yards, on inquiry from the motorman of the street car whether he could take his car across the tracks, said, "Yes; come ahead," it was not error to charge the jury to find whether the yard conductor was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the statement.

5. Where the amount of a verdict in a personal injury suit has been approved by the trial court, it will not be interfered with on appeal, when it does not appear to be the result of passion or prejudice.

6. In an action against a railroad and a street railroad for injuries sustained while a passenger of the street railroad, resulting from collision with a railroad train at a crossing, evidence held sufficient to warrant the finding that the street railroad was not guilty of negligence.

Appeals from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neil Ryan, Judge.

Action by John Snider against the Chicago & Alton Railway Company and the Granite City & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for the Granite City Company, plaintiff appeals; and from a judgment for plaintiff, the Chicago & Alton Company appeals. Affirmed on both appeals.

On July 26, 1903, plaintiff was a passenger on a street car operated by defendant the Granite City & St. Louis Railway Company. The car collided with a train of the Chicago & Alton Railway Company at Granite City, in the state of Illinois, and plaintiff was injured. He sued both the street and steam railway companies to recover damages sustained by reason of the collision. The allegations of negligence against the Chicago & Alton Railway Company are as follows: "And the plaintiff further avers that the defendant the Chicago & Alton Railway Company, and its agents and servants in charge and control of the management and running of its cars, so carelessly and negligently managed and controlled the movements of its cars as to cause and suffer said cars to run into and collide with the car of the defendant Granite City & St. Louis Railway Company on which the plaintiff was such passenger. And the plaintiff avers that the said defendant the Chicago & Alton Railway Company was negligent in failing to ring the bell on the engine eighty rods from the crossing, and to sound the whistle eighty rods from the crossing, and to continue to ring the bell and sound the whistle until the crossing was reached, according to the statutes of Illinois, chapter 114, par. 74, sec. 6, entitled `Bell & Whistle — Crossing,' page 3226 of vol. 3, Starr & Curtis Illinois Statutes, which said negligence directly contributed to cause said collision and plaintiff's said injuries. And plaintiff further avers that the defendant Chicago & Alton Railway Company was guilty of negligence in this: that the servants and agents of said company carelessly and negligently signaled the agents and servants of the defendant Granite City & St. Louis Railway Company in charge of the car on which the plaintiff was such passenger to proceed across said track and crossing, which said negligence directly contributed to cause said collision and plaintiff's said injuries."

The jury found in favor of the street railway company, but against the Chicago & Alton Railway Company, and assessed plaintiff's damages at $1,975 — the full amount sued for — and judgments were rendered accordingly. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment in favor of the street railway company, and the Chicago & Alton Railway Company appealed from the judgment against it. Both appeals are presented here in one record, and both will be disposed of by this opinion.

The street railway runs east and west on Ferry street through Granite City, and crosses the tracks of the Chicago & Alton Railway Company at right angles where they cross Ferry street, running north and south. Ferry street is a public street, but no gates or guards are maintained by the Chicago & Alton Railway Company where its tracks (four in number) cross the street. The car on which plaintiff was a passenger when injured was heavily loaded, having on it 75 or 80 passengers. Plaintiff testified that the car was so crowded that he stood on the right side of the front platform (south side of car as it was moving east), with his right hand clasping the upright which supports the roof of the car; that when the car crossed Ferry street he was looking at a train of cars standing on the north side of the street, and while in this position a train from the south backed into the street car, catching the middle and third finger of his right hand between the car and the upright to which he was holding, injuring them. He stated that the street car did not stop before proceeding to cross Ferry street, and that he did not hear any one call to the motorman to proceed across the railway tracks, nor see any signal given him to proceed. Mrs. Sophie Smith testified that she sat behind the motorman on the front platform of the street car, and the car did not stop before proceeding across the street; that the train which collided with the car was about 15 feet south of the street, and backing north toward the crossing when the street car proceeded across the tracks. She did not hear any one call to the motorman, or see any one give him a signal. Miss Sophie Smith testified that she was standing in the doorway on the front platform of the car, which was moving slowly. She saw a hand signal by a man who was on one of the Chicago & Alton cars, facing the motorman, and that the signal, as she understood it, was for the motorman to come ahead, and as he did so the train backed up, and the collision took place. This was all the evidence offered by plaintiff in respect to the collision.

The conductor in charge of the car testified for the street railway company: That he stopped his car before proceeding to cross the Chicago & Alton tracks. That there was a train backing in from the south, but it stopped five or six feet south of the street car tracks, and, to make sure that everything was all right, he asked the switchman, who said to him, "Yes; come ahead." He started, and the minute he got on the track the railroad car crashed into his car. That the man who gave him the signal and told him to come ahead was E. C. Rechter, who was yardmaster of the train south of the crossing. That Rechter was standing on the ground north of the crossing when he gave him the signal and told him to come ahead. The engine was several hundred feet south, on a curve, and could not be seen from the crossing. The collision occurred on the third or fourth track of the Chicago & Alton Railroad. He saw no switchman on the train until after the collision, when he saw one on about the tenth car from the rear end of the train. No one gave him a signal, from the top of the car or train, to cross the track. At the time of the collision his car was moving at a speed of about three miles per hour. Lammering, McDuvall, Lavin, and Irwin, witnesses for the street railway company, all testified that they heard the motorman ask if it was all right to come ahead, and some one answered, "Yes; come ahead."

The evidence for...