State ex rel. Koenen v. Daues
| Decision Date | 15 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | 27056 |
| Citation | 288 S.W. 14 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. KOENEN v. DAUES, Judge, et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
E. H Wayman and McLaran & Garesche, all of St. Louis, for relator.
J. L Howell and R. E. Blodgett, both of St. Louis, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari wherein the relator seeks to have quashed the opinion and judgment of the St Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Joe Koenen, Appellant, v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, Respondent, lately pending before it on appeal from the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. The opinion follows:
'This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on December 20, 1922, while engaged in moving a mail truck in Union Station train sheds in St. Louis, Mo. At the close of plaintiff's case the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence, whereupon plaintiff took an involuntary nonsuit with leave to move to set the same aside. In due time such motion was filed, and, from the order of the court overruling the same, plaintiff has appealed.
'The petition alleged that defendant negligently failed to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work, in that it allowed the station platform to become congested with trucks and sacks of mail, and negligently ordered plaintiff to move a truck over the platform while it was in such congested condition. The answer was a general denial, coupled with a plea of assumption of risk, and an allegation that plaintiff's injuries were the result of his own negligence in guiding the truck he was handling. The reply was conventional.
'The accident occurred on the platform in the train sheds between tracks 30 and 31, which run north and south. Track 31 is east of 30. The south end of the platform has an incline of 14 inches in 5 feet. At the south end of the train sheds the tracks curve decidedly to the west, while about 15 feet south of the sheds there is a walk or 'high line' leading from the east to the west, which enables the employees to go from one side of the sheds to the other.
'A mail car was standing on track 30 at the extreme south end of the sheds, and just opposite it on track 31 was an express car extending out upon the curved portion of the track. Plaintiff was engaged in placing mail in the mail car from a truck which stood at the north door of the car. Immediately north of this truck stood an empty truck of solid steel construction, about 15 feet long and 4 feet wide, and weighing about 1,000 pounds. There was another truck load of mail at the south door of the mail car, while alongside of the car on track 31 was an express truck, standing about 8 feet south of the truck which plaintiff was unloading. The platform at this point was about 15 feet wide, and was congested with mail and express, due to the Christmas rush.
'While plaintiff was unloading the mail truck at the north end of the mail car, Mr. Rubenthal, defendant's general foreman, ordered him to move the empty truck and take it over the 'high line' No specific route was designated, but the only way that it was possible to move the truck was to pull it south on the platform. In compliance with this order, plaintiff first pushed the empty truck slightly north and then turned it towards the east in order to get it from behind the mail truck he had been unloading. He then pulled it south until he reached the express truck standing by the car on track 31, when he attempted to veer his course to the west to avoid the express truck. It was then necessary that he turn his truck back towards the east so as to pass the mail truck standing at the south door of the mail car, and then pull it once more to the west to avoid the end of the express car projecting out upon the curved portion of the track. In pulling the truck down the sloping platform, plaintiff was required to hold it back to prevent it from gaining too much speed.
'As plaintiff attempted to turn the truck to the west, to clear the express truck, the rear end caught on the express truck, with the result that he was no longer able to guide it. The truck came on down the incline, and, to avoid being caught between it and the express car, plaintiff jumped, keeping his right hand on the end of the truck to push himself away. As the truck ran into the express car, plaintiff's body was in the clear, but his thumb was caught and crushed by the impact.
'Plaintiff had...
To continue reading
Request your trial