St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Britton

Decision Date01 September 1911
Docket Number3,561.
Citation190 F. 316
PartiesST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. BRITTON.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

William T. Wooldridge (Samuel H. West, Frank G. Bridges, and Nicholas J. Gantt, Jr., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Frank Pace (Jeff Davis, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and MARSHALL and WM. H. MUNGER District Judges.

WM. H MUNGER, District Judge.

Willa Britton, as plaintiff, brought this action against plaintiff in error, as defendant, to recover damages for an alleged personal injury caused, as stated, by the negligence of defendant.

The evidence in the case discloses the sad life of a very unfortunate young lady. Plaintiff, at the trial November 2 1910, testified that she was 19 years of age, and was married on August 6, 1906 (age 15). In June, 1907, after a miscarriage, her doctor performed a curetment. In September 1909, she was operated upon, and a tumor removed from one of her ovaries. In December following she was operated upon for appendicitis, and in April, 1910, was operated upon for gall stones. At that operation it was discovered that she had adhesions of the intestines on the right side, and the doctor declined to proceed farther with the operation on account of the danger to her life. He said she would suffer from these adhesions until she was operated upon and had them broken up and advised her to go to a specialist, recommending Mayo Bros.

She left the hospital on the 23d of June, 1910, went to a boarding house, remained until the 8th of July, when she took a young sister to the country. Returning on the 11th, she purchased at the station of England a ticket to Little Rock and became a passenger upon the train of the defendant road between England and Little Rock. The train consisted of an engine, tender, baggage car, and two passenger coaches. The seats in the coach were double cushioned seats. She seated herself near the center of the rear coach on the left-hand side of the car, facing in the direction the train was going. She was alone in the seat and sat near the aisle. After the train had left England some little time the forward wheels of the front trucks of the tender left the rails, supposedly on account of the lowering of the track, caused by the roadbed being softened from rains. The engineer, immediately discovering from the sound that these wheels were off, applied his air brake, slowed down, and stopped the train. Plaintiff testified that the train stopped with such a sudden jerk or jolt that she was thrown against the window sill and her left side and back injured. When the train stopped the male passengers got out of the car to ascertain the cause of the stoppage. There were three lady passengers in the coach in which she was sitting. They (with plaintiff) got up, walked to the rear of the coach, and looked out to see if they could ascertain why the train had stopped. In about 15 minutes the wheels were replaced on the rails and the train started. After returning to her seat, and after the train had started, the motion of the car made her sick. Her illness seemed to increase before the train...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Tisthammer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1580
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 7 April 1930
    ... ... 818; ... U. S. v. Sixty Barrels of Wine, 225 F. 846; Rwy ... Co. v. Britton, 190 F. 316; Louisville Rwy. Co. v ... Admrx., 90 S.W. 977. A jury is not permitted to ... by a three wire fence. At the southwestern end, where this ... fence joins the right of way fence, was a 16 foot gate ... On the ... In ... Henderson v. St. Louis & Hannibal Ry. Co., 36 Mo.App ... 109, an action brought to recover for live stock killed by ... ...
  • Elzig v. Gudwangen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 30 July 1937
    ...K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Collier (C.C.A.8) 157 F. 347, 353, certiorari denied 209 U.S. 545, 28 S.Ct. 571, 52 L.Ed. 920; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Britton (C.C.A.8) 190 F. 316; American Car & Foundry Co. v. Kindermann (C. C.A.8) 216 F. 499, 502; United States v. Harth (C.C.A.8) 61 F.(2d) 5......
  • St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. McConnell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 7 April 1913
    ...to the physical facts. There was, therefore, no substantial testimony to sustain the verdict. Supra; 79 Ark. 608; 76 S.W. (Mo.), 684, 688; 190 F. 316; 128 S.W. 890; Ill.App. 174; 1 C. Rob. 252; 145 N.Y. 540; 40 N.E. 246; 64 A.D. 95; 71 N.Y.S. 721; 137 Mo.App. 47, 119 S.W. 328; 37 Ore. 74, 6......
  • Fitch v. Stanton Tp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 1 September 1911
  • 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