Steeley v. Kurn, 36678.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1941
• Docket Number: No. 36678.,36678.
• Parties: CLAUDE STEELEY v. J.M. KURN and JOHN G. LONSDALE, Trustees of the ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

146 S.W.2d 578 CLAUDE STEELEY
v.
J.M. KURN and JOHN G. LONSDALE, Trustees of the ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellants. No. 36678. Supreme Court of Missouri. Division One, January 4, 1941.

Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. Charles A. Calvird, Judge.

REVERSED.

E.G. Nahler, Charles E. Hassett and Mann & Mann for appellants.

(1) Plaintiff's testimony that "Murphy dropped it," and that is all that appears in the record as to Murphy's conduct, is insufficient to warrant the jury in finding that Murphy was guilty of negligence in dropping it. Neth v. Delano, 184 Mo. App. 654, 171 S.W. 1; Hawley v. Lusk, 184 S.W. 1174; Davidson v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 229 S.W. 786; Davidson v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 301 Mo. 79, 256 S. W. 169. (a) Until destroyed by evidence of probative value the presumption is that Murphy exercised ordinary care and was not negligent. Haggard v. McGrew C. Co., 200 S.W. 1074; Hartwell v. Parks, 240 Mo. 537; Whitesides v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 186 Mo. App. 620; Yarnell v. Kansas City, F.S. & M. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. App. 579. (b) Where the injury may have resulted from one of two or more causes, for one of which, but not the other, defendant would be liable, plaintiff must show, with reasonable certainty, that the cause for which defendant is liable produced the result; that showing was not made in this case. Luettecke v. St. Louis, 140 S.W. (2d) 51; Warner v. St. Louis & M. Ry. Co., 178 Mo. 134; State ex rel. Trading Post Co. v. Shain, 342 Mo. 593, 116 S.W. (2d) 102; Cole v. Uhlmann Grain Co., 340 Mo. 277, 100 S.W. (2d) 317; Hayes v. Kresge Co., 100 S.W. (2d) 329; Cain v. Talge Lounge Co., 222 Mo. 508. (c) Plaintiff assumed the risk as a matter of law. Arnold v. Scandrett, 131 S.W. (2d) 542; Jones v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 325 Mo. 1153, 30 S.W. (2d) 483; York v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 333 Mo. 105, 62 S.W. (2d) 475; McCormick v. Hutchison E. Co., 326 Mo. 380, 31 S.W. (2d) 971; Hunter v. Busy Bee Candy Co., 307 Mo. 668, 271 S.W. 803; O'Dell v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 281 S.W. 456; Frederick v. Erie Co., 36 Fed. (2d) 718; Chesapeake & O. Railroad Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 76 L. Ed. 157; Toledo, St. L. & W. Railroad Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 165, 72 L. Ed. 513; Southern P. Railroad Co. v. Bershire, 254 U.S. 415, 65 L. Ed. 335; McAdoo v. Auzellott, 271 Fed. 268. (2) Where two or more acts of negligence are submitted in the disjunctive, the evidence must be sufficient to support both. If it fails to support either, the instruction is fatally erroneous. Kuhn v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 281 Mo. 342; Whitehead v. Fagelman, 44 S.W. (2d) 61; Morris v. Waggoner E. Co., 243 S.W. 426; Bonarrens v. Lead Belt Ry. Co., 309 Mo. 65, 273 S.W. 1047.

Sylvan Bruner, Vance Julian and Sizer & Myers for respondent.

Because a prima facie case of negligence was made. The record discloses that Murphy's conduct in "deliberately" dropping the rod was ample and sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that Murphy was guilty of negligence. No other conclusion could have been reached by the jury, since the testimony of all of the defendants' witnesses shows that the rod did not slip from Murphy's hand, nor did Murphy stumble, nor was the dropping of it caused by any stumble or slip of any of Murphy's coemployees. Karagas v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 1100; Wheeler v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 322 Mo. 271, 18 S.W. (2d) 494, 74 L. Ed. 621; Jones v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 333 Mo. 802, 63 S.W. (2d) 94; Walls v. Thompson, 119 S.W. (2d) 43; Martin v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 253 S.W. 513; Neth v. Delano, 184 Mo. App. 654, 171 S.W. 1; Hawley v. Lusk, 184 S.W. 1173; Davidson v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 229 S.W. 786; Id., 301 Mo. 79, 256 S.W. 169. Because the defendants filed a general demurrer at the close of the whole case, which the court overruled. No withdrawal instructions were offered by the defendants; hence, if plaintiff made a case under any of the alleged specifications of negligence, the demurrer was properly overruled. Torrance v. Pryor, 210 S.W. 430; State ex rel. Miss. River & B.T. Railroad Co. v. Allen, 308 Mo. 487, 272 S.W. 925; Ray v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co., 273 S.W. 1078; Motz v. Watson, 284 S.W. 837; Seewald v. Gentry, 220 Mo. App. 367, 286 S.W. 445; Kirkpatrick v. Amer. Creosoting Co., 225 Mo. App. 774, 37 S.W. (2d) 996; Curtis v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 74 S.W. (2d) 255; Lehay v. Winkel, 251 S.W. 483; Mills v. Steadley & Co., 279 S.W. 160; Packer v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 265 S.W. 119. Because the presumption that Murphy was exercising ordinary care was destroyed by positive evidence that Murphy "deliberately"...