Stuart v. Dickinson
Citation | 290 Mo. 516,235 S.W. 446 |
Decision Date | 30 November 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 21789.,21789. |
Parties | STUART v. DICKINSON et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Clarence A. Burney, Judge.
Action by William A. Stuart, a person of unsound mind, by Ida Stuart, his guardian, against Jacob M. Dickinson, receiver of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, and another. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Luther Burns, of Topeka, Kan., and Guthrie, Conrad & Durham, of Kansas City, for appellants.
T. J. Madden and H. G. Pope, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action under the Employers' Liability Act for personal injuries received in a head-on collision between two freight trains on a line of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. The plaintiff was the locomotive engineer in charge of one of the trains; and whether negligence on his part, or negligence of the crew of the opposing train, or that of the telegraph operators or signalmen who gave the signals under which the two trains were being operated, caused the collision was the mainly contested issue in the trial below.
The collision just referred to occurred June 27, 1915, near Platt River, a station about 9 miles east of St. Joseph, Mo., The colliding trains were both regular time-table trains running on schedule, one known as 1-93, bound from Trenton, Mo., to Horton, Kan., and the other, known as from Horton to Trenton. At that time the entire Rock Island System was being managed and operated by the defendant Dickinson, as receiver (hereinafter called the receiver), the orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Consequently the plaintiff and all other persons then engaged in the operation of the roads of the defendant Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company (hereinafter called the railway company) were employés of the receiver.
The manual of rules and regulations governing the operation of trains or the Rock Island Lines was introduced in evidence. The rules that have been stressed as applicable to the situation under consideration will be set out. Under the general head, "Movement of Trains," are found rules 87, 88, 92, 99, and 106, as follows:
Under the title, "Manual Block System Rules," the following are found:
On the time card, a copy of which was delivered to all employés engaged in the operation of trains on the division of which the Horton Line was a part, this rule was printed:
"While it is important to make schedule, safety must be given first consideration."
The caution card referred to in rule 332 contained this language:
"You may proceed * * * with caution, expecting to find track obstructed."
On receiving such a card an engineer was required to proceed with his train under control; that is, at such a rate of speed that he could stop it at any time within the distance that the track was seen to be clear.
Under the general rules governing the movements of trains a superior train was defined as one having precedence over another train. This superiority might arise from class or direction; 1-93 and 1-98 were both second class trains, but 1-98 was the superior train because east-bound.
In June, 1915, the line from Trenton to Horton was operated under the manual block system. A "block" is defined in the book of rules offered in evidence as "a length of track of defined limits, the use of which by trains is controlled by block signals." On the line in question a block consisted of the track from one open telegraph station to the next—in either direction. A siding between such stations was called an intermediate siding. The first telegraph or block station east of St. Joseph was Platt River; the next was Clarksdale. Between Platt River and Clarksdale there was an intermediate siding called Stockbridge. The distance between Platt River and Clarksdale was about 11 miles and that between Platt River and Stockbridge about 4 miles.
1-93, with plaintiff in charge as engineer, left Trenton about 6 o'clock on the morning of June 27, 1915, for Horton via. St. Joseph. It arrived at Clarksdale about six hours behind its schedule. According to the operator at the latter point, he endeavored...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lloyd v. Alton Railroad Co.
... ... Chi., B. & Q.R. Co., 259 S.W. 481, 303 Mo. 107; Case v. St. L., etc., R. Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 1069; Great N. Ry. Co. v. McDermid, 177 Fed. 105; Stuart v. Dickinson, 290 Mo. 516, 235 S.W. 446; Owen v. Kurn, 148 S.W. (2d) 519, 347 Mo. 516; Yost v. Railroad Co., 245 Mo. 219, 149 S.W. 577; Title 45, ... ...
- State ex rel. v. Day et al.
-
Hall v. Wilder Mfg. Co.
... ... Such is the settled doctrine. 34 C. J. 1113, 1144; Marx v. Fore, 51 Mo. 69, 11 Am. Rep. 432; Stuart v. Dickinson, 290 Mo. 516, 235 S. W. 446; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565; Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U. S ... ...
-
Kramer v. Grand Natl. Bank
... ... (7) Instruction 3 was grammatically incorrect and confusing. 1 Randall on Instructions, 863; Stuart v. Dickinson, 290 Mo. 516, 235 S.W. 460. (8) Instruction 3 contained an undue and prejudicial emphasis in that it twice directed a verdict for ... ...