Wait v. Omaha, K. C. & E. R. Co.
Decision Date | 17 December 1901 |
Citation | 65 S.W. 1028,165 Mo. 612 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | WAIT v. OMAHA, K. C. & E. R. CO. |
Plaintiff boarded a freight train in the switch yards, before it had reached the station, when it stopped at a water tank. The station agent told plaintiff that he should get on at the water tank. As the train approached the station, plaintiff stepped out of his seat to take off his overcoat, and while so occupied was violently thrown across the seats, by the train stopping at the station, receiving injuries. Plaintiff testified that he knew freight trains had to have more or less slack in the couplings, which caused jolts in starting or stopping. There was no evidence of defects in track, train, or appliances, or any want of skill in the handling of the train, or that it stopped at an improper place. Held, that the shock was an incident necessary in the running of freight trains, which the plaintiff will be deemed to have assumed.
Appeal from circuit court, Sullivan county; John P. Butler, Judge.
Action by William J. Wait against the Omaha, Kansas City & Eastern Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Wilson & Clapp, for appellant. J. M. Winters and J. G. Trimble, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries, in which, at the close of the evidence, the court sustained a demurrer thereto, and instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. From the judgment on the verdict returned in pursuance of such instruction, the plaintiff appeals, The only question in the case is whether the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The material evidence in the record, on which this question must be determined, is as follows:
The plaintiff, who is 6 feet 1 inch tall and weighs from 220 to 225 pounds, and who was 41 years old at the time of the trial, testified as follows in chief: On cross-examination: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Coy
...on this occasion in the usual and ordinary way and without any negligence. The doctrine res ipsa loquitur was not applicable. 195 Mo. 104; 165 Mo. 612; 148 Mo. 139; 130 136; 53 Mo.App. 466; 94 Id. 289; 98 Id. 494; 101 Id. 54; 113 Id. 636; 147 Id. 332; 144 Ill. 261, 33 N.E. 204; 172 Mass. 73......
-
Orcutt v. Century Building Co.
...the usual incidents and conduct of a freight train, managed by prudent and competent men. [Railroad v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291.]" In Wait v. Railroad, 165 Mo. 612, 621, Brace, P. J., says: "It seems now to be well-settled law here, as else-where, that where a railroad company carries passengers ......
-
Jones v. Thompson
... ... 198; Scrivner v ... Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 260 Mo. 421; State ex rel ... Vulgamott v. Trimble, 253 S.W. 1014; Wait v. O., ... K.C. & E.R. Co., 165 Mo. 612. (7) The damages assessed ... by the verdict of the jury are grossly excessive. Guidice ... v. Viviano ... ...
-
Jones v. Thompson
...Co., 139 Mo. App. 198; Scrivner v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 260 Mo. 421; State ex rel. Vulgamott v. Trimble, 253 S.W. 1014; Wait v. O., K.C. & E.R. Co., 165 Mo. 612. (7) The damages assessed by the verdict of the jury are grossly excessive. Guidice v. Viviano Bros. Mfg. Co., 9 S.W. (2) 964; Schule......