Willi v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 05 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24657 |
| Citation | 274 S.W. 24 |
| Parties | WILLI v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles W. Bates, T. E.Francis, and S. P. McChesney, all of St Louis, for appellant.
W. H Douglass, of St. Louis, for respondent.
The plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis against the defendant for $ 8,000, on account of personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon him through the negligence of defendant's employees.
On a former trial, plaintiff recovered judgment for $ 5,000 which, on appeal to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, was reversed, and the cause remanded on account of an erroneous instruction. Willi v. United Rys. Co., 205 Mo.App. 272, 224 S.W. 86.
At the time of the trial the plaintiff was 28 years of age, a laborer engaged in operating a square shearer for the Hager Hinge Company. He attended a picnic August 27, 1916, given by the metal polishers, at Roth's Grove, near Delmar Garden, on the Olive street road. After the picnic, about 7:30 or 8 o'clock in the evening, plaintiff and other persons went to Roth's Station, about 3 or 4 blocks south of the Grove, for the purpose of boarding a Creve Coeur car. Roth's Station is in the woods, and the track at that point is elevated 5 or 6 feet above the surrounding forest. A double track passes there, and on each side of the track a cinder platform, about 80 feet in length, and 6 or 7 feet wide, is on a level with the top of the rails. Between the rails and between the tracks the ground was 3 or 4 inches lower. A crowd, coming from the picnic at the north, mounted the platform on the north side by means of steps. When plaintiff got to the platform a number of persons were there waiting for cars. One car passed, took on some of the passengers, and the remainder waited for another car. The plaintiff stood a few minutes on the platform at the north side of the north track, and then passed over to the south platform for the purpose of taking an east-bound car. It had been raining, and was quite dark and cloudy; the platform was surrounded by trees. There was no light at the station; the light with which it was equipped was not burning. According to all the witnesses, the platform was crowded, people laughing, talking, jostling, and moving about. A trolley car without a headlight approached from the west; some of the inside lights were out of order, and the car dashed into the crowd, knocking down three persons, one of whom was the plaintiff. He was rendered unconscious, and his leg cut off, and for that injury he sued. One Annie Keller was knocked unconscious at the same time, and one John Allen, attempting to cross the track, was struck and knocked down, without being injured. Six witnesses who were present at the time, besides the plaintiff, testified for plaintiff. All of them swore that no warning was sounded as the car approached, though it seems that the car was equipped with a whistle and a gong. Four of the witnesses testified that they did not see the car until it was passing the station; two of them saw it, perhaps a car length away, by the lights inside.
According to the evidence for plaintiff, it was dark so that one standing in the crowd on the platform could not tell how near he was to the track except by stepping down into the lower space between the rails. In the jostling crowd sometimes plaintiff and sometimes others would step off between the rails. Plaintiff, and some of his witnesses who did not see the car until it was passing, testified that they had been watching all the time for a car, expecting to board it. After the plaintiff was knocked down, matches were lighted to discover who he was and how he was hurt. Plaintiff recovered consciousness the next morning at the hospital.
The defendant offered evidence tending to show a reasonable excuse for failure to have the headlights in operation. They had got out of repair after the trip was started, and could not have been put in order without losing the trip; also there was some excuse for failure to have the station lights in operation.
The defendant further offered evidence tending to show that a man wearing a white hat, such as the plaintiff wore, darted across in front of the car as it came, and was struck before he could get across. The defendant demurred at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, and assigns error to the action of the court in overruling such demurrer. The case was submitted to the jury on three alleged acts of negligence: (1) That the motorman was operating the car at an excessive rate of speed, such that he could not stop it at the station; (2) that he failed to sound a gong or to blow the whistle as he approached the station; (3) that the defendant failed to have headlights on the car or a light at the station, so that people could see the car as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial