Stoutimore v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1936
• Docket Number: 33227
• Citation: 92 S.W.2d 658,338 Mo. 463
• Parties: Ralph Stoutimore v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

92 S.W.2d 658

338 Mo. 463

Ralph Stoutimore v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 33227

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 10, 1936

Rehearing Overruled March 10, 1936.

Appeal from Platte Circuit Court; Hon. Richard B Bridgeman, Judge.

Affirmed (upon condition).

Cyrus Crane, George J. Mersereau, John N. Monteith and Dean Wood for appellant.

(1) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction P-1 and in overruling this defendant's motion in arrest of judgment for the reason that the pleadings predicate this defendant's negligence solely on the negligence of its employee and codefendant, Harry Ellis, and consequently the verdict of the jury against the plaintiff and for Harry Ellis entitled this defendant to an order in arrest of judgment. Plaintiff's petition shows that this defendant is to be held liable to this plaintiff only on the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligence of the employee and conductor, Harry Ellis. Baird v. Larabee Flour Mills Corp., 203 Mo.App. 432, 220 S.W. 990; Whiteaker v. Ry. Co., 252 Mo. 438, 160 S.W. 1011. Negligence in the instant case may not be presumed, but must be pleaded and proved, for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply here. Deister v. Ry Co., 271 Mo. 63, 195 S.W. 501; McCloskey v. Koplar, 46 S.W.2d 559. The giving of plaintiff's Instruction P-1 was reversible error as beyond the pleadings. Sanguinett v. May Department Stores, 65 S.W.2d 165; Kitchen v. Schleuter Mfg. Co., 323 Mo. 1179, 20 S.W.2d 682; State ex rel. Ebert v. Trimble, 63 S.W.2d 88; Gandy v. Ry. Co., 44 S.W.2d 638. Where a plaintiff sues a defendant employer for the acts or omissions to act of its employee, codefendant, if the jury absolves the employee from negligence by its verdict, then the employer cannot be liable and a verdict and judgment against him cannot stand. Wright v. Hannan and Everitt, 81 S.W.2d 304; Stephens v. Oberman Mfg. Co., 334 Mo. 1078, 70 S.W.2d 901, transferred to K. C. Ct. of Apps., 79 S.W.2d 416; McGinnis v. Ry. Co., 200 Mo. 347, 98 S.W. 594, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 880. (2) The fact, if so, that the pawl slipped over the ratchet, as testified by plaintiff does not show from the fact the accident happened that way, that the hand-brake equipment had existed in such loose condition long enough prior to the accident to put the defendants on constructive notice under their duty of ordinary inspection. Thompson v. Ry. Co., 183 S.W. 635; Hamilton v. Ry. Co., 123 Mo.App. 619, 100 S.W. 674; C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hessenflow, 170 P. 1162. The law is well established in this State that the defendants were only under a duty of ordinary care to the plaintiff. Thompson v. Ry. Co., 183 S.W. 631; Deister v. Ry. Co., 271 Mo. 63, 195 S.W. 500; Doering v. Ry. Co., 63 S.W.2d 451; Copeland v. Ry. Co., 293 F. 15. (3) The court erred in refusing this defendant's peremptory Instruction B and in giving plaintiff's Instructions P-1, P-2; for the reason that the evidence in law shows the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Lancaster v. Wood, 279 S.W. 505; Ahearn v. Railroad Co., 45 A. 1032, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 543; C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hessenflow, 170 P. 1162; Southern Ry. Co. v. Morrison, 31 S.E. 567; Cash v. Sonken-Galamba Co., 17 S.W.2d 931. (4) The court erred in overruling this defendant's motion for a new trial, as refiled after remittitur; for the reason that the verdict of the jury for $ 40,000 in this case was greatly excessive and was the result of prejudice and bias on the part of the jury, which could not be cured by the remittitur of $ 15,000. Whenever it is shown that an excessive verdict is the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury, then the entire verdict and judgment will be presumed to be so tainted with poison that nothing short of a new trial will extract the virus. A jury so dominated and blinded by passion and prejudice as to render a verdict beyond all reason as to the amount cannot be held to have given the losing party a fair trial in other respects. Clark v. Atchison & Eastern Bridge Co., 62 S.W.2d 1082; Rigby v. St. Louis Transit Co., 153 Mo.App. 330, 133 S.W. 111; Trent v. Barber, 56 S.W.2d 151.

Ira B. McLaughlin and John W. Coots, Jr., for respondent.

(1) The rule that, where the liability of a master is based solely on the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligence of the servant, who is the immediate actor, a verdict in favor of the servant operates to discharge the master, does not apply where such verdict results from an erroneous instruction. Stith v. Newberry Co. and Johnson, 79 S.W.2d 447; Lindman v. Kansas City, 308 Mo. 161, 271 S.W. 523. (a) The verdict resulted from plaintiff's Instruction P-1 and defendant's Instruction 3. If erroneous (which we deny), defendant is estopped from asserting the error, because its instruction contained the same direction alleged to be erroneous. Gary v. Averill, 321 Mo. 840, 12 S.W.2d 747; Munday v. Knox, 321 Mo. 168, 9 S.W.2d 960; Riggs v. Ry. Co., 216 Mo. 304, 115 S.W. 969; Taylor v. Ry Co., 333 Mo. 650, 63 S.W.2d 69; Coleman v. Rightmeyer, 285 S.W. 403; O'Rourke v. Ry. Co., 142 Mo. 342, 44 S.W. 254; Steger v. Meehan, 63 S.W.2d 109; Johnson v. Ry. Co., 334 Mo. 22, 64 S.W.2d 674; Kaechelen v. Barringer, 19 S.W.2d 1033; Sullivan v. Union Elec. L. & P. Co., 331 Mo. 1065, 56 S.W.2d 97; Phillips v. Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 863; Morris v. Railroad Co., 320 Mo. 371, 8 S.W.2d 11; Von Eime v. Fuchs, 320 Mo. 746, 8 S.W.2d 824. (b) The question here is one of proof. The case having been tried, without objection that evidence admitted was not within the pleadings, the petition on appeal will be treated as amended, if such amendment is necessary (which we deny). Talbert v. Ry. Co., 321 Mo. 1080, 15 S.W.2d 762; Slymon v. Simon, 226 Mo.App. 1000, 48 S.W.2d 140; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 218 S.W. 412, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126; North Nishabotna Drainage Dist. v. Morgan, 323 Mo. 1, 18 S.W.2d 438; Porter v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 71 S.W.2d 766. (c) The joint charge of negligence is divisible; the verdict here is proper because the proof authorizes recovery against the company and the discharge of the conductor. Doster v. Ry. Co., 158 S.W. 440; State ex rel. Mersereau v. Ellison, 260 Mo. 129, 168 S.W. 744; Berkshire Lumber Co. v. Chick Inv. Co., 168 Mo.App. 342, 153 S.W. 1078; Miller v. Busey, 186 S.W. 983; Welch-Sandler Cement Co. v. Mullins, 31 S.W.2d 86; Raleigh v. Raleigh, 5 S.W.2d 689; Tiny v. Hogan, 181 Mo.App. 48, 163 S.W. 873; Woods-Evertz Stove Co. v. Grubbs, 135 Mo.App. 466, 116 S.W. 5; Seibel v. Crim, 7 S.W.2d 302; Grubb v. Curry, 72 S.W.2d 863; Allen v. Forsy the, 160 Mo.App. 262, 142 S.W. 820. (d) The petition does not charge that Ellis was the sole and immediate actor; it includes a breach of the corporate defendant's primary duty by other of its employees. Hall v. Missouri Pacific, 219 Mo. 553, 118 S.W. 56. (e) The duty of the company to exercise ordinary care to furnish stock cars for plaintiff's use, equipped with safe and efficient hand brakes, is non-delegable. Burch v. Ry. Co., 328 Mo. 59, 40 S.W.2d 688; Jetter v. Ry. Co., 193 S.W. 956; Tinkle v. Railroad Co., 212 Mo. 445, 110 S.W. 1086; Fassbinder v. Ry. Co., 126 Mo.App. 563, 104 S.W. 1154; Jewell v. Struges, 245 Mo. 720, 151 S.W. 966; Nelson v. Railroad Co., 132 Mo.App. 687, 112 S.W. 1017; Witham v. Delano, 184 Mo.App. 677, 171 S.W. 990; Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. O'Brien, 132 F. 593; Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. Cochran, 22 F.2d 22; Applegate v. Q. O. and K. C., 252 Mo. 173, 158 S.W. 376; Strayer v. Q. O. and K. C., 170 Mo.App. 514, 156 S.W. 732; Hawkins v. Mo. Pac., 182 Mo.App. 323, 170 S.W. 459; Hudgens v. Ry. Co., 139 Mo.App. 44, 119 S.W. 522; Rooney v. Ry. Co., 220 Mo.App. 273, 286 S.W. 153; Chorn v. Railroad Co., 168 Mo.App. 518, 153 S.W. 1060; Burrow v. Mo. Pac., 220 Mo.App. 337, 286 S.W. 434; Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 328 Mo. 389, 41 S.W.2d 543; Benton v. St Louis, 217 Mo. 687, 118 S.W. 418; Lindman v. Kansas City, supra; Shafir v. Carroll, 309 Mo. 458, 274 S.W. 755; Amis v. Standard Oil, 233 S.W. 195; Warren v. American Car & Foundry Co., 327 Mo. 755, 38 S.W.2d 718; Nichols v. Champion Fibre Co., 128 S.E. 471; Southern Drilling Co. v. McKee, 42 P.2d 265; Miller v. Alaska S. S. Co., 246 P. 296; Morris v. Ry. Co., 235 P. 1047; Curtis v. Puget Sound Bridge, 233 P. 936; Goekel v. Railroad Co., 126 A. 446; Maldonato v. Ironbound Transp. Co., 156 A. 275. (f) The evidence authorized the jury, without any inconsistency, to render a verdict against the corporate defendant and in favor of the codefendant Ellis. (g) Where the codefendant servant is not the sole and immediate actor, a verdict in his favor does not operate to release the master. Vest v. S. S. Kresge Co., 213 S.W. 165; Robinson v. Moark-Nemo Consol. Min. Co., 178 Mo.App. 531, 163 S.W. 885; Stith v. Newberry Co. and Johnson, 79 S.W.2d 447. (2) There was an abundance of circumstantial evidence upon which the jury was authorized to infer constructive notice to the corporate defendant of the defective hand brake. Bassett v. Wabash, 166 Mo.App. 619, 150 S.W. 720; Rhea v. Mo. Pac., 171 Mo.App. 160, 156 S.W. 4; Blankenbaker v. Railroad Co., 187 S.W. 840; Hawkins v. Ry. Co., 182 Mo.App. 323, 170 S.W. 459; Carpenter v. Ry. Co., 189 Mo.App. 164, 175 S.W. 234; Peneff v. Ry. Co., 204 N.W. 524; St. L.S.F. Ry. v. Ewan, 26 F.2d 619; Huhn v. Ruprecht, 2 S.W.2d 760; Gutridge v. Mo. Pac., 105 Mo. 520, 16 S.W. 943; Gunn v. Hemphill Lumber Co., 218 S.W. 978; Roan v. Wells, 14 S.W.2d 488. (3) The defect in the hand brake was not so glaring and obvious as to threaten immediate injury to plaintiff or such that a reasonably prudent man would not have attempted to further operate the hand brake. Kincaid v. Ry. Co., 62 Mo.App. 365; Hoffman v. Peerless White Lime Co., 317 Mo. 86, 296 S.W. 764; ...