Strottman v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 27 February 1908 |
Citation | 211 Mo. 227,109 S.W. 769 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | STROTTMAN v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. |
The fellow servant law (Laws 1897, p. 96) relates to the liability of railroad corporations in relation to damages sustained by employés. Section 1 provides that a railroad shall be liable for all damages sustained by any agent or servant thereof while engaged in operating the railroad, by reason of the negligence of any other agent or servant thereof. Section 2 provides who are vice principals and not fellow servants. Section 3 (page 97) provides who shall be fellow servants. Held, that section 1, when construed with the other sections, evidences an intention to give a cause of action to an injured railroad employé where the injury was caused, not by the negligence of any other employé in the master's employ, but where it was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant.
4. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL — STATUTES — JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PRIOR ACT — PRESUMPTIONS.
Rev. St. 1899, §§ 2864, 2865 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 1637-1644), provide for a recovery for the death of a person caused by wrongful act, where the injured person would have been entitled to recover had death not ensued. By judicial construction the act was held not to include a claim for damages for injuries occasioned by the negligence of a fellow servant. Held, that the Legislature in subsequently passing the fellow servant act of 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 96, § 1), giving a right of action for injuries to a servant, caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, without providing for a survival of the action, will be presumed to have known the judicial interpretation placed upon sections 2864, 2865, and hence will not be held to have intended that the right of action, given under the later act, should be transmitted, under those sections, to the injured employé's representatives where his death ensues.
5. SAME.
Section 2865, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1644), does not create a new cause of action, but simply transmits one that theretofore existed, and would have ceased to exist upon the death of the injured party but for its provisions.
6. SAME — EXCLUSIVENESS OF REMEDY GIVEN.
Where a statute creates a new right unknown to the common law, and at the same time gives a remedy for its enforcement, the remedy so prescribed is exclusive; and hence the fellow servant act of 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 96, § 1), giving a remedy to an injured fellow servant, cannot be enlarged to confer on his representatives the remedy in event of his death from the injury.
7. STATUTES — CONSTRUCTION — INCORPORATION IN REVISED STATUTES.
The mere fact that acts are incorporated into a revision of the statutes, and the sections given new numbers by the revisers, does not change the force or effect of the acts.
8. DEATH — ACTIONS — RIGHT OF ACTION.
Prior to Act April 13, 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 135), amending Rev. St. 1899, c. 17, § 2864 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1637), providing an action for wrongful death, so as to authorize a recovery for the death of an employé, servant, or agent of a railroad company, etc., caused by a fellow servant's negligence, there was no statute in force allowing a recovery for a death so occasioned.
9. SAME — STATUTES — CONSTRUCTION.
Rev. St. 1899, §§ 2864, 2865 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 1637-1644), providing a remedy for a death by negligent act, and the fellow servant act of 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 96), are in derogation of the common law, and must be strictly construed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
10. MASTER AND SERVANT — INJURIES FROM NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW SERVANTS — RIGHTS TO RECOVER AT COMMON LAW.
At common law no action could be maintained by a fellow servant to recover damages against a corporation, or other person, by reason of the negligence of a fellow servant.
In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Frank R. Dearing, Judge.
Death action by Magdalene Strottman against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Martin L. Clardy and Louis F. Dinning, for appellant. H. B. Irwin and Byrns & Bean, for respondent.
This is an action by plaintiff, Magdalene Strottman, widow of Fred W. Strottman, against the defendant company to recover $5,000 damages for the death of her husband, who was injured in a collision on defendant's railway on October 22, 1902, from which injuries he thereafter died. The petition alleges as follows: The defenses were a general denial (except as to the allegation that defendant was a railway corporation) and a plea of contributory negligence. The trial before the court and jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $5,000. Having duly filed motions for new trial and in arrest, which were overruled, defendant saved exceptions, and appealed.
The facts disclosed by the record are but few, and are substantially as follows: Fred W. Strottman was at the time of the accident an engineer in the service of defendant, and, as such engineer, in charge of an engine which was pulling out a train of cars at De Soto, Mo. He was ordered by defendant to run said engine and train south, on defendant's main track, from De Soto through and beyond Blackwell Station, a station about nine miles south of De Soto, and situated in St. Francois county, Mo., and in pursuance of said order he was running said engine and train of cars south over defendant's road. At the same time defendant's agents and servants, acting in the line of their duties, were conducting and running an engine and train from beyond Blackwell Station to the north on its road; and defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Roach
...S. W. 454; State ex rel. v. Ryan, 232 Mo. 77, 133 S. W. 8; State ex rel. v. Harter, 188 Mo. 516, 87 S. W. 941; Strottman v. St. Louis, etc., Ry., 211 Mo. 227, 109 S. W. 769. This rule is wellnigh universal in all jurisdictions, and is without exception, save that the interpretation reached ......
-
Meyer & Company v. Unemployment Comp. Comm.
....... Rehearing Denied, June 12, 1941. . [152 S.W.2d 185] . Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. Eugene L. Padberg, Judge. . REVERSED AND REMANDED ( with directions ). . Robert L. Maul for ...Battenfeld Oil & Grease Co., 327 Mo. 804, 39 S.W. (2d) 345; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1045; Strottman v. Railroad, 211 Mo. 227, 109 S.W. 769; Straughan v. Meyers, 268 Mo. 580; Holder v. Elms Hotel Co., 338 Mo. 857; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. ......
-
In Matter of Estate of Hall, 34115.
......(b) Some office or function must be ascribed to each clause in the statute. State ex rel. v. Harter, 188 Mo. 516, 87 S.W. 941; Strottman v. Ry. Co., 211 Mo. 251, 109 S.W. 769; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 553, 167 S.W. 1008; Bowers v. Pub. Serv. Co., 328 Mo. 781, 41 S.W. (2d) 810, ...114-127, secs. 4, 30; Laws 1919, pp. 722-723; Secs. 575, 602, R.S. 1929; State v. Freeland, 300 S.W. 675, 318 Mo. 560; Dysart v. St. Louis, 11 S.W. (2d) 1045; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 692, 116 S.W. 518; Williams v. Railroad Co., 7 S.W. (2d) 392. (b) The intention expressed in ......
-
Kansas City v. Terminal Railway Co., 29051.
...team-tracks and freight house at Oak Street. State ex rel. v. Harter, 188 Mo. 516; Perry v. Strawbridge, 209 Mo. 621; Strottman v. Railroad, 211 Mo. 227; Otto v. Young, 227 Mo. 193; Sconce v. Surmeyer Co., 258 Mo. 616; People ex rel. Railroad v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 231 N.Y. 1; Highway Commiss......