Weaver v. Mobile & O. R. Co.

• Citation: 120 S.W.2d 1105,343 Mo. 223
• Decision Date: 16 November 1938
• Docket Number: 32140
• Parties: Thomas Weaver v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

120 S.W.2d 1105

343 Mo. 223

Thomas Weaver v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 32140

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 16, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William H Killoren, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Roberts P. Elam and Rufus Creekmore for appellant Carl Fox of counsel.

(1) The issue of defendant's negligence in failing to furnish a reasonably safe motorcar, in that the car furnished had no receptacle for tools, was not involved in this case because (a) Assuming such negligence, it was not, and could not have been, under plaintiff's evidence in, and theory of, this case, the proximate cause of the derailment and plaintiff's injury. Kennedy v. Independent Quarry & Const. Co., 316 Mo. 782, 291 S.W. 475; Dixon v. Omaha & St. L. Ry. Co., 124 Mo. 140, 27 S.W. 478; Kane v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 251 Mo. 13, 157 S.W. 644; Jaquith v. Fayette R. Plumb, Inc., 254 S.W. 91; Coble v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 38 S.W.2d 1031; Winona v. Botzet, 169 F. 321, 94 C. C. A. 563. (b) Assuming such negligence, the risk thereof was assumed by plaintiff as a matter of law, in any event. Butler v. Frazee, 211 U.S. 459, 53 L.Ed. 281; Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U.S. 415, 65 L.Ed. 335; C. & O. Railroad Co. v. Leitch, 275 U.S. 429, 48 S.Ct. 336, 72 L.Ed. 638; Osborn v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.2d 181; Quigley v. Hines, 291 Mo. 23, 235 S.W. 1050; Hoch v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 287 S.W. 1047; Boldt v. Penn. Ry. Co., 245 U.S. 441, 38 S.Ct. 139, 62 L.Ed. 385; McIntyre v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 286 Mo. 234, 227 S.W. 1047; Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Shalstrom, 195 F. 725; Maki v. Coal Co., 187 F. 389. (2) The defendant's instructions in the nature of demurrers to the evidence should have been given to the jury because there was no substantial evidence sufficient to justify submission to the jury of the issue as to whether the negro, Essick, came in contact with the punch bar, knocking it from, and derailing, the motorcar. 45 U.S.C. A., secs. 51-59; Chicago, M. & St. P. Railroad Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 472, 46 S.Ct. 564, 70 L.Ed. 1041; Gulf, M. & N. Railroad Co. v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, 48 S.Ct. 151, 72 L.Ed. 370; Delaware & L. Railroad Co. v. Koske, 279 U.S. 7, 49 S.Ct. 202; Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Co. v. Toops, 281 U.S. 351, 50 S.Ct. 281; Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U.S. 250, 45 S.Ct. 300, 69 L.Ed. 597; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U.S. 333, 53 Sup. Co. 391; Patton v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 658, 21 S.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361; Martin v. Wabash Ry. Co., 30 S.W.2d 735; Shidloski v. New York, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 64 S.W.2d 259; Adelsberger v. Sheehy, 59 S.W.2d 644; Southern Railroad Co. v. Walters, 284 U.S. 190, 52 S.Ct. 58, 76 L.Ed. 239; Steele v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 117, 175 S.W. 177; Chesapeake & O. Railroad Co. v. Martin, 238 U.S. 209, 51 S.Ct. 453; Champagne v. Hamey, 189 Mo. 709; Sexton v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 245 Mo. 254; McCarthy v. B. & O. Ry. Co., 90 A. 490. (3) Instruction 1, given to the jury at plaintiff's request, was confusing and misleading, was contradictory to and inconsistent with Instruction 4, and submitted to the jury an issue which was without support in the evidence. Champion Coated Paper Co. v. Shilkee, 237 S.W. 109; International Bank v. Enderle, 133 Mo.App. 222, 113 S.W. 262; Kinlen v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 216 Mo. 145, 115 S.W. 523; Degonia v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 224 Mo 564, 123 S.W. 807; Silliman v. Munger Laundry Co., 44 S.W.2d 163; Schulz v. Smercina, 318 Mo. 486, 1 S.W.2d 113; Nagy v. St. Louis Car Co., 37 S.W.2d 515; Guldner v. International Shoe Co., 293 S.W. 428; Willhauck v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 61 S.W.2d 336; Gray v. Columbia Terminals Co., 52 S.W.2d 809; Karte v. Brockman Mfg. Co., 247 S.W. 417; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 195 S.W. 722; Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Ritchie, 143 Mo. 587, 613, 45 S.W. 641. (4) Instruction M, requested by the defendant and refused by the court, undertook to instruct the jury that the burden of proof as to the issue of negligence was upon the plaintiff. Defendant was entitled to this instruction. Berger v. St. Louis Cold Storage Co., 136 Mo.App. 36, 116 S.W. 444; Marshall Livery Co. v. McKelvey, 55 Mo.App. 240. (5) The verdict of the jury was, and is, grossly excessive and the result of passion and prejudice, and and the judgment, after remittitur, is grossly excessive. Cole v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 61 S.W.2d 344; Hughes v. Schmidt, 325 Mo. 1099, 30 S.W.2d 468; Davis v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 49 S.W.2d 47; Spencer v. Quincy, O. & K. C. Ry. Co., 297 S.W. 353.

Mark D. Eagleton and Allen, Moser & Marsalek for respondent.

(1) The court properly overruled the defendant's demurrers to the evidence. In passing upon a request of a defendant for a peremptory instruction, it is the duty of the trial court under the federal rule, to accord the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences in his favor that may be fairly and reasonably deduced from the evidence; and if uncertainty as to the existence of liability arises from a conflict in the evidence, or if reasonable and fair-minded men may honestly draw different conclusions from the facts in evidence, the case is one for the determination of the jury. Gill v. B. & O. Ry. Co., 302 Mo. 317, certiorari denied, 265 U.S. 592; Young v. Wheelock, 64 S.W.2d 951; Clark v. Bridge Co., 62 S.W.2d 1079; Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 S.W.2d 470, certiorari denied, 50 S.Ct. 34; Henry v. Ry. Co., 61 S.W.2d 342; Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. v. Hughes, 278 U.S. 496, 73 L.Ed. 473; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 94, 74 L.Ed. 724; Baltimore & O. Railroad Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 527, 69 L.Ed. 423; Gardner v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 150 U.S. 360, 37 L.Ed. 1110; Texas & P. Railroad Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 606, 36 L.Ed. 833; Richmond & D. Railroad Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 45, 37 L.Ed. 643; Line v. Erie Ry. Co., 62 F.2d 659, certiorari denied, 77 L.Ed. 1478; Carolina, etc., Ry. Co. v. Stroop, 239 F. 75, 244 U.S. 649, 61 L.Ed. 1371; Detroit T. & I. Railroad Co. v. Hahn, 47 F.2d 60, certiorari denied, 283 U.S. 842. (a) The testimony of plaintiff shows that his injury was due to negligence on Essick's part, in kicking the punch bar from the car, and constitutes evidence of a substantial character supporting his right to recover. The testimony of a single witness in support of a fact constitutes substantial evidence. The credibility and weight of plaintiff's testimony was for the jury and not for the trial court. Union Pac. Railroad Co. v. James, 163 U.S. 485, 41 L.Ed. 236; Didinger v. Penn. Ry. Co., 39 F.2d 798; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Howell, 6 F.2d 784; Philadelphia & R. Railroad Co. v. Eisenhart, 280 F. 271; New York L. O. Co. v. Pussey, 211 F. 627; Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Co. v. Condos, 30 F.2d 669; Mayer v. Mutschler, 248 F. 914; In re Strauch, 208 F. 846; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Jeffries, 276 F. 75; Hardy-Burlingham Co. v. Baker, 10 F.2d 277; Franke v. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 516. (b) The evidence of a prior contradictory statement alleged to have been made by plaintiff as to the manner in which the accident occurred raised an issue for the jury and not for the court. Steele v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 302 Mo. 207; Gibbons v. Wells, 293 S.W. 91; Moffett v. Butler Mfg. Co., 46 S.W.2d 869; Sugarwater v. Flemming, 316 Mo. 742; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Iowa State Bank, 1 F.2d 196; Porter v. Greenbrier Quarry Co., 161 Md. 34, 155 S.W. 428; Miles v. Webb, 162 Md. 269, 159 A. 782. (c) Plaintiff's testimony as to his injury was not impossible or contrary to physical law or to the admitted facts. In a case of this nature the account of the occurrence as given by plaintiff can be rejected as opposed to the physical facts only when that conclusion is so clear and irrefutable that no room is left for the entertainment by reasonable minds of any other. Gately v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 56 S.W.2d 54; 10 R. C. L. 1008; Benjamin v. Railroad Co., 245 Mo. 609; Kibble v. Railroad Co., 227 S.W. 46; Kelly v. Rys. Co., 225 S.W. 133; Keisinger v. Rys. Co., 211 S.W. 909; Schupback v. Meshevsky, 300 S.W. 465; Kiefer v. St. Joseph, 243 S.W. 104. (d) It was not incumbent upon plaintiff, before he was entitled to have his case submitted to the jury, to sustain all the allegations of negligence set out in his petition. His evidence shows that he was entitled to recover on account of the negligence of Essick in kicking the bar from the motorcar. The plaintiff's alleged assumption of the risk arising from the failure of the defendant to equip the car with a tool box, or to secure the tools thereon, could not affect his right to have his case submitted to the jury on the other allegation of negligence. Plummer v. Ford, 208 S.W. 489; Goggin v. Wells, 249 S.W. 702; Conley v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 253 S.W. 424. (e) Plaintiff did not assume the risk arising from Essick's act in kicking the bar from the car. Dean v. Woodenware Works, 106 Mo.App. 180; Devitt v. Railroad Co., 50 Mo. 302; Lopez v. Hines, 254 S.W. 37; Preston v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 292 Mo. 442, certiorari dismissed, 260 U.S. 753, 67 L.Ed. 496; Van Loon v. Ry. Co., 6 S.W.2d 587; Oregon, etc., Railroad Co. v. Tracy, 66 F. 931; So. Railroad Co. v. Miller, 267 F. 376, certiorari denied, 254 U.S. 646; Schlemmer v. Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 1, 51 L.Ed. 681; Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 58 L.Ed. 1062; C. & O. Railroad Co. v. De Atley, 241 U.S. 310, 60 L.Ed. 1016; Montgomery v. Railroad Co., 22 F.2d 359; Burgess v. Ore Co., 165 Mass. 71; Sumner v. Ann Arbor Ry. Co., 235 Mich. 293; 4 Thompson on Negligence (1 Ed.), pp. 623, 628, sec. 4608, 4610; Doyle v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 31 S.W.2d 1010, certiorari denied, 51 S.Ct. 345. (2) The court did not err in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1. (a) The finding required by...