State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Haid
Citation | 28 S.W.2d 97 |
Decision Date | 15 May 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 29515.,29515. |
Parties | THE STATE EX REL. CITY OF ST. CHARLES v. GEORGE F. HAID ET AL., Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Certiorari to St. Louis Court of Appeals.
WRIT QUASHED.
Wm. F. Achelpohl, T.C. Bruere and Hensley, Allen & Marsalek for relator.
(1) Respondents' opinion in the cause of Cregger v. City of St. Charles, is in conflict with the following, among other, controlling decisions of this court, holding that, in order to recover for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff must adduce substantial evidence to establish a direct causal connection between the injury and the negligence charged, showing such negligence to be the proximate cause of the injury; and that a verdict in favor of the plaintiff cannot be based upon pure speculation and conjecture: State ex rel. Public Utilities v. Cox, 298 Mo. 427; Hamilton v. Railway Co., 300 S.W. 791; State ex rel. Boeving v. Cox, 310 Mo. 367; State ex rel. Railroad v. Bland, 313 Mo. 246; State ex rel. Macon v. Trimble, 12 S.W. (2d) 727; Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Const. Co., 269 Mo. 104; Van Bibber v. Swift & Co., 286 Mo. 317; Kane v. Ry. Co., 251 Mo. 13; Swearingen v. Railway Co., 221 Mo. 644; Harper v. Terminal Co., 187 Mo. 575; Layton v. Chinberg, 282 S.W. 436; Strother v. Railroad Co., 188 S.W. 1102; Yarnell v. Railroad, 113 Mo. 570. (2) Said opinion is in conflict with the following, among other, controlling decisions of this court, holding that where the evidence shows that an injury may have resulted from one of two causes, for one of which, and not the other, the defendant could be held liable, the plaintiff must show with reasonable certainty that the cause for which the defendant could be held liable was the proximate cause of the injury; and that if, as between the two possible causes, the evidence leaves the proximate cause of the injury to speculation and conjecture, plaintiff's case must fail. Warner v. Railroad, 178 Mo. 125; Kane v. Railway Co., 251 Mo. 13; Hamilton v. Railroad, 300 S.W. 792; Van Bibber v. Swift & Co., 286 Mo. 317; Coin v. Lounge Co., 222 Mo. 488; Goransson v. Mfg. Co., 186 Mo. 300; Strother v. Railway Co., 188 S.W. 1105; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 133 Mo. 168. (3) Said opinion is likewise in conflict with the following, among other, controlling decisions of this court, holding that a plaintiff cannot make out his case by building inference upon inference, with no reasonable foundation in the evidence for an inference or inferences so utilized, so that the proximate cause of the injury is left to speculation and conjecture. State ex rel. Macon v. Trimble, 12 S.W. (2d) 727; State ex rel. Public Utilities Co. v. Cox, 298 Mo. 427; Layton v. Chinberg, 282 S.W. 436; Cardinale v. Kemp, 309 Mo. 275; Hamilton v. Railway Co., 250 Mo. 714; Yarnell v. Railroad, 113 Mo. 580. (4) Where the opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with a prior decision of this court upon a like or similar state of facts or which has ruled an identical question of law, or if the opinion of the Court of Appeals contravenes a prior decision of this court regarding any general principle of law announced by this court, certiorari will lie to quash the opinion of the Court of Appeals. State ex rel. City of Macon v. Trimble, 12 S.W. (2d) 730; State ex rel. Pub. Utilities Co. v. Cox, 298 Mo. 427; State ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 300 S.W. 812; State ex rel. Boeving v. Cox, 310 Mo. 367; State ex rel. Railroad Co. v. Bland, 313 Mo. 246; State ex rel. Gordon v. Trimble, 300 S.W. 478.
B.H. Dyer, Wm. F. Bloebaum, Alvin H. Juergensmeyer and Hostetter & Haley for respondents.
(1) In an original proceeding in certiorari, under Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 8, Amendment 1884, the Supreme Court cannot quash the opinion of a court of appeals unless the latter has announced some principle contrary to announcement of the Supreme Court. State ex rel. Buick v. Daues, 19 S.W. (2d) 700; State ex rel. American School of Osteopathy v. Daues, 18 S.W. (2d) 487. (2) In an original proceeding in certiorari the Supreme Court does not determine whether the view of the Court of Appeals is correct or incorrect, but only whether it conflicts with a controlling decision of the Supreme Court. State ex rel. Packing Co. v. Reynolds, 287 Mo. 697; State ex rel. Lehrack v. Trimble, 308 Mo. 597. (3) In original proceedings in certiorari to a court of appeals the writ, under the Constitution, cannot be made to perform the office of a writ of error. State ex rel. Lehrack v. Trimble, 308 Mo. 597. (4) The question of proximate cause is ordinarily one of fact for consideration and determination by a jury. Hogan v. Fleming, 297 S.W. 409; Northern v. Fisheries Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 982; Railway Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469. (5) Though causal connection between negligence and injury must be proved by evidence as a fact, direct proof of such fact is not required, and it is sufficient if facts proved are of such a nature and so connected and related to each other that conclusion therefrom may be fairly inferred. Brainerd v. Railroad Co., 5 S.W. (2d) 15; Settle v. Railway, 127 Mo. 341. (6) The doctrine of concurrent negligence is firmly rooted in the jurisprudence of this State. A defendant may be liable, even if the accident was not caused by his sole negligence. He is liable if his negligence concurred with the act of another, or with the act of God, or with an inanimate cause, and became a part of the direct and proximate cause of the injury, although not the sole cause. Northern v. Fisheries Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 982; Hogan v. Fleming, 297 S.W. 404; Harrison v. Electric Light Co., 195 Mo. 606; Brash v. St. Louis, 161 Mo. 433; 45 C.J. 907-910.
This is an original proceeding by certiorari in which relator seeks to have quashed the record of the St. Louis Court of Appeals affirming the judgment for $3500 in favor of plaintiff in a cause wherein Burnice Cregger was plaintiff and the City of St. Charles, relator herein, was defendant.
Plaintiff's action was for damages for the death of her husband, which resulted from his falling from a moving truck at about the intersection of Kingshighway and Sibley Street in defendant city, it being claimed that deceased's fall was due to the negligence of the city in permitting a hole dangerous to travelers to be and remain in the surface of Kingshighway. Respondents in their opinion, Cregger v. City of St. Charles, 11 S.W. (2d) 750, thus state the facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scanlon v. Kansas City
... ... State ex rel. Gott v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (Mo.), 298 S.W. 88: Abeles v ... App. 50, 173 S.W. 104; Ingwerson v. Railroad, 205 Mo. 335; St. Charles Bank v. Thompson, 284 Mo. 72; Berryman v. Becker, 173 Mo. App. 346, 354; ... ...
-
Leek v. Dillard
...Practice (Perm.Ed.), Vol. 2A, Sec. 1191, loc. cit. 7. Compare Harris v. Hughes, Mo.App., 266 S.W.2d 763, 770(11).7 State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Haid, 325 Mo. 107 (banc), 28 S.W.2d 97, 102(6); Taylor v. Silver King Oil & Gas Co., supra, 203 S.W.2d loc. cit. 154(5); Johnessee v. Centr......
-
Hildreth v. Key
...may be shown by proof of facts and circumstances from which such connection reasonably may be inferred. State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Haid, 325 Mo. 107, 28 S.W.2d 97, 102(6); Steele v. Woods, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 187, 195(7); Leek v. Dillard, supra, 304 S.W.2d loc. cit. 65(10); Taylor v. ......
-
Phillips v. Stockman
...see Martin v. Smith, 103 Cal.App.2d 894, 230 P.2d 679; Morton v. Mooney, 97 Mont. 1, 33 P.2d 262.11 State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Haid, 325 Mo. 107, 119, 28 S.W.2d 97, 102(6); Taylor v. Silver King Oil & Gas Co., Mo.App., 203 S.W.2d 147, 154(5); Johnessee v. Central States Oil Co., M......