State v. Trimble
Decision Date | 04 March 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 24879.,24879. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. WABASH RY. CO. et al. v. TRIMBLE et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Certiorari by the State of Missouri, on the relation of the Wabash Railway Company and Sid Briggs, against Francis H. Trimble and others, Judges"of Kansas City Court of Appeals, and Elizabeth Koontz. Writ quashed.
For opinion below, see 253 S. W. 413.
Homer Hall, of St. Louis, and Wm. Paul Pinkerton and Sebree, Jost & Sebree, all of Kansas City, for relators.
John C. Grover and E. M. Tipton, both of Kansas City, for respondents.
Certiorari to review the record of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Elizabeth Koontz v. Wabash Railway Co., 253 S. W. 413, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff therein for $6,000 for personal injuries. The facts are thus stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
Sid Briggs was the engineer in charge of the engine at the time of the accident. The answer is a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence.
1. It is contended by the relator that the opinion of the Court of Appeals does violence to the humanitarian doctrine as announced by this court; that to make a case under that rule the plaintiff must be in the danger zone, oblivious to her peril, and her obliviousness must have been apparent to the enginemen, citing Keele v. Railroad, 258 Mo. 62, 167 S. W. 433; Reeves v. Railroad, 251 Mo. 169, 158 S. W. 2; Boyd v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 371, 16 S. W..909; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 286 Mo. 204, 226 S. W. 564; Id., 2S9 Mo. 479, 233 S. W. 219; and Lackey v. United Ry. Co., 288 Mo. 120, 231 S. W. 956.
In these cases the persons killed approached the railroad track at about right angles, with nothing to obstruct the view of the approaching train. In the Keele Case, 258 Mo. loc. cit. 79, 167 S. W. 438, Chief Justice Lamm said:
See citations from other cases in Beal v. St, Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 256 S. W. 733.
2. The facts, however, in the Koontz Case clearly distinguish it from the cases relied on by relator. Mrs. Koontz did not approach the railroad crossing at right angles, nor was the train approaching from the north within the range of her vision. It was apparent that she was hurrying or running to the station. Athough she had been advised that the train was on time, she neither saw nor heard it. No signals were given by bell or whistle. When she reached a point 25 or 30 feet from the railroad track, she turned southward and ran along a path parallel with the rails, with her back to the train. When she was 3 or 4 feet east of the rails the train was 50 or 60 feet north of her and running 5 or 6 miles an hour. When she was between the rails or in the act of stepping over the west rail, she was struck by the engine, knocked down in front of it, and rolled over for a distance of about 50 feet, finally landing parallel with the track, where she lay between the rail and the station platform. How far she ran on this path before being struck is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoelzel v. Railway Co.
...Co., 8 S.W. (2d) 924; Anderson v. Davis, 284 S.W. 439; Dutton v. Ry. Co., 292 S.W. 718; Logan v. Ry. Co., 254 S.W. 705; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 260 S.W. 1000; Conley v. Ry. Co., 253 S.W. 426; Spoeneman v. Uhri, 60 S.W. (2d) 9; Zumwalt v. Ry. Co., 266 S.W. 717; Ellis v. Ry. Co., 234 Mo. 63......
-
Smith v. Public Service Co.
...Smith v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 9 S.W. (2d) 939, 945, 321 Mo. 105; Larkin v. Wells. 278 S.W. 1087, and cases cited; State ex rel. v. Trimble et al. (Mo.), 260 S.W. 1000, and cases cited.] There was evidence from which the jury could find that the street car was then just entering West Penn......
-
Vowels v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
...(f) Enginemen are required to keep a lookout and they will be held to have seen what they could have seen by looking. State ex rel. Wabash v. Trimble, 260 S.W. 1000; Ellis v. Met. Railway, 234 Mo. 657; Logan v. Railroad Co., 330 Mo. 611; Koontz v. Wabash, 253 S.W. 443; Moore v. Frisco Railw......
-
Carney v. Railway Co.
...v. Railway, 281 S.W. 737; Gann v. Railway, 6 S.W. (2d) 39; Zumwalt v. Railway, 266 S.W. 717; Logan v. Railway, 254 S.W. 705; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 260 S.W. 1000; Chapman v. Railway, 269 S.W. 688; Koontz v. Railway, 253 S.W. 413; Mason v. Railway, 246 S.W. 318; Conley v. Railway, 243 S.W......