Taber v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 15 May 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 17320.,17320. |
Citation | 186 S.W. 688 |
Parties | TABER v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. H. Lucas, Judge.
Action by Margaret L. Taber, guardian of Harry H. Small and others, minors, against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Edw. J. White, of St. Louis, and Thos. Hackney, of Kansas City, for appellant. Cowherd, Ingraham, Durham & Morse and Hale Houts, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
Petition filed September 21, 1910, in said court stating that the respondent is guardian of Harry H. Small, Grace L. Small, and Margaret G. Small, minor children of Charles H. Small, deceased, and setting forth her appointment as such guardian by the probate court for Jackson county. It states: That Charles H. Small was employed by the defendant as a switchman in the East Bottoms switchyards of defendant, in Kansas City, Mo., where it was his duty as such switchman to aid in cutting up and making up trains and switching and coupling cars under the supervision of a switch foreman. That about 8:45 o'clock a. m. on April 19, 1910, while he was engaged in switching cars on track No. 5 in said yard, by taking out loaded cars and returning empty ones to the said track, and two of the empties which had been so returned were running slowly by gravity down said track, which was slightly inclined toward the west, the foreman directed him by signal to prepare to couple them up with six other empty cars being brought back by the engine to said track, and the foreman also signaled him that the six cars would be "shoved in" on said track 5 for coupling; that is to say, they would be brought in attached to and under control of said engine, and not cut loose and permitted to run by gravity. That said Small, as his duty was upon said signal, It then proceeds to state that Small relied upon said custom and manner of doing the work, and that the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in disregarding it and failing to warn him resulted in his death; that he was a widower about 42 years of age; that his wife died on or about May 10, 1909; and that he left surviving him the minor children above named, and concluded as follows:
The defendant demurred generally, and after the overruling of the demurrer filed its amended answer: (1) Denying "that Margaret L. Taber is the duly appointed guardian for Harry H., Grace L., and Margaret G. Small, as alleged in the petition"; (2) alleging generally that Small's death "was due to his own carelessness and negligence directly contributing thereto and for which the defendant was in no way responsible"; and (4) that the death of Small was due to a risk incident to his employment and assumed by him by written contract to that effect.
The plaintiff replied by general denial.
The evidence tended to show, and, so far as the physical situation goes, is undisputed, that the place where the accident happened that resulted in the death of Mr. Small was a trainyard of the defendant railway company consisting of 19 parallel tracks running west from the lead which communicated with them, and numbered consecutively from south to north. Track No. 5 was laid on a very slightly descending grade from east to west, so that cars shoved upon it and released would continue to move by gravity.
At about 8 o'clock on the morning of the accident, train No. 53 was to be made up for the west on track 9, and among other tonnage was to take 14 loaded cars from a coupled string of 42 mingled loads and empties which stood on track 5. A switch engine, with the crew to which the deceased belonged, consisting of the engineer and fireman, one switchman who followed the engine and released cars, the deceased, called the long field man, whose duty it was to attend to the switches and other work farthest removed from the engine, and another switchman for the short field, together with the foreman, was assigned to this work. To perform it, it was necessary for the engine to go onto No. 5 track, couple to a drag of 25 cars from the 42 which stood there, pull it out onto the lead, then shove it into No. 9 track, which was 150 feet north of No. 5 in a direct line and 220 feet along the lead, where they left all the loads in the rear coupled to No. 53. They then pulled the remainder of the drag clear of No. 5 switch, and put three empty cars, which came next on that track where they continued to run slowly down the track. The drag then pulled out and again went in on No. 9 track, coupling to No. 53 all loads behind the next two empties, which were pulled out and started down track five. They then went back to track 9, and left the remaining loads coupled to 53, leaving six empties attached to the engine. These they pulled out of track 9 and up the lead to clear the switch to track 5, where it stopped, standing ready to push its cars onto track 5 to be coupled to the two that were then moving slowly down that track after the first three that had been thrown in. The lead was clear to a point beyond track 9. Mr. Kay, the switchman who told this story to the jury, stood just outside the switch to track 5, ready to throw the empties in. Mr. Lonegan, the foreman, stood about 10 feet away on the inside of the lead, while the deceased was right on track 9 where he had been coupling the loads, the three men being within plain sight of each other, when the movement began which resulted in the death of Mr. Small. Mr. Lonegan then signaled Mr. Small that he was going to shove in on track No. 5, and to couple up. The latter walked straight across to No. 5 track, 150 feet, stepped behind the two cars last released, and still moving slowly down the track, and, finding the coupler out of order so that the jaws would not open, walked behind it trying to open them. While he was doing this, the engine shoved its six cars two or three car lengths in on track 5, gave them a kick, that is to say, increased the speed of the engine and released them, and they went down the track at a speed of 10 or 12 miles per hour. It was, the evidence tended to show, a rule or custom in the performance of such work that when cars were shoved into a track attached to the engine, for the purpose of being coupled to other cars, to stop the engine before coming in actual contact with the coupling, and wait for a signal from the switchman making the coupling, to proceed. Mr. Lonegan, the foreman of the crew, was a witness for defendant and told the story of these movements in his testimony. He denied that he had given Mr. Small any signal whatever directing him to go across to track 5, or to couple the cars to be placed on that track; but that, on the contrary, he had, before the movement began, directed him in the following words: "Charlie, anything that we throw that are held back on No. 5, let them go to hell." He also stated that he never saw Mr. Small alive after he saw him standing on track 9, and that had he sent him in on track 5 to do the coupling he would have waited for a signal before pushing in the cars.
Should it be necessary to make further reference to the testimony, we will do so in the course of the opinion. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant asked a peremptory instruction for a verdict, which was refused.
At the close of all the evidence, the court, at the request of plaintiff, gave the jury, among others, the following instructions of which the defendant complains.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
...Fed. 82; Voorhees v. Railroad, 14 Fed. (2d) 899; Halt v. Ry. Co., 279 S.W. 148; DeClue v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 264 S.W. 995; Taber v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 186 S.W. 688; Ry. Co. v. Earnest, 229 U.S. 114; McGovern v. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 389; Briscoe v. Railroad, 200 Mo. App. 691; Penny v. Stock Yards......
-
Johnson v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co.
... 205 S.W. 615 276 Mo. 42 FLOYD JOHNSON v. WAVERLY BRICK & COAL COMPANY and MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellants Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division September 16, 1918 ... 572 ... James ... F. Green and Harvey C. Clark for appellant, Mo. Pac. Ry. Co ... (1) ... Plaintiff's instructions 5 and 6, which purport to cover ... Iron & Foundry Co., 234 Mo. 436, 137 S.W. 577; Baker ... v. Railroad, 147 Mo. 140; Taber v. Ry. Co., 186 ... S.W. 688; Sykes v. Ry. Co., 178 Mo. 693, 77 S.W ... 723; Edington v ... ...
-
Koonse v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... 75; ... Railroad v. Mangan, 278 F. 85; Hines v ... Knehr, 266 F. 340; Fletcher v. Railroad, 168 ... U.S. 135; Railroad v. Bartley, 172 F. 82; ... Voorhees v. Railroad, 14 F.2d 899; Halt v. Ry ... Co., 279 S.W. 148; DeClue v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., ... 264 S.W. 995; Taber v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 186 S.W ... 688; Ry. Co. v. Earnest, 229 U.S. 114; McGovern ... v. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 389; Briscoe v. Railroad, ... 200 Mo.App. 691; Penny v. Stock Yards Co., 212 Mo ... 309; Black v. Ry. Co., 172 Mo. 177. (2) In addition ... to proof of an explicit rule of ... ...
-
Ford v. Dickinson
...said act, and neither of the defendants made any reference to said act, or facts coming within that act in their answers. Taber v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 186 S.W. 688; v. Santa Fe, 98 Kan. 452; Atlantic Coast Line v. Mims, 242 U.S. 532, 61 L.Ed. 476; 2 Robert's Federal Liability of Carriers, p. ......