Wolf v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1941
• Docket Number: 36828
• Parties: Emma J. Wolf, Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur H. Wolf, v. New York, Chigago & St. Louis Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

148 S.W.2d 1032

347 Mo. 622

Emma J. Wolf, Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur H. Wolf, v. New York, Chigago & St. Louis Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 36828

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 12, 1941

Rehearing Granted, Reported at 347 Mo. 622 at 631.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. John W Joynt, Judge.

Affirmed.

Jones Hocker, Gladney & Grand and Web A. Welker for appellant;

W T. West of counsel.

(1) This action must be determined under and according to the law of Illinois. Cox v. Term. Railroad Assn., 55 S.W.2d 685, 331 Mo. 910, 43 S.W.2d 571; Newlin v. Railroad Co., 222 Mo. 391, 121 S.W. 125; Caine, Admr., v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 209 Ala. 181, 95 So. 876, 32 A. L. R. 793. (2) Appellant's instructions in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given, for the following reasons: (a) Respondent had the burden of proof to show her intestate was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, and she wholly failed to sustain that burden. Greenstreet v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 234 Ill.App. 399; Opp v. Pryor, 294 Ill. 538, 128 N.E. 580; Morgan v. R. B. & J. Rd. Co., 251 Ill.App. 127; Dee v. Peru, 343 Ill. 36, 174 N.E. 901; Francis v. Humphrey, 25 F.Supp. 1; Schopp v. Muller Dairies, 25 F.Supp. 50; Schlander v. Chicago & So. Traction Co., 253 Ill. 154, 97 N.E. 233; Dambacher v. I. C. Ry. Co., 288 Ill.App. 457, 6 N.E.2d 227; Goodman v. C. & E. I. Ry. Co., 248 Ill.App. 128; Grubb v. Ill. Term. Co., 336 Ill. 330, 8 N.E.2d 938; Walters v. City of Ottawa, 240 Ill. 259, 88 N.E. 651; Ridgway, Admr., v. I. C. Ry. Co., 24 N.E.2d 759; Petro v. Kines, 299 Ill. 236; Ingle v. Maloney, 234 Ill.App. 151; Anderson v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 243 Ill.App. 337; Burns v. C. A. Ry. Co., 234 Ill.App. 439. (b) The burden of proof to show that the deceased, Wolf, was exercising ordinary care was one of substantive law and goes to appellee's right to recover. Sheehan v. Term. Railroad Assn., 81 S.W.2d 308, 336 Mo. 709; Koebel v. Tieman Coal & M. Co., 85 S.W.2d 525, 337 Mo. 651. (c) The negligence of the deceased, Wolf, as a matter of law, bars a recovery in this case. Dee v. Peru, 343 Ill. 36, 174 N.E. 901; Opp v. Pryor, 294 Ill. 538, 128 N.E. 580; Greenstreet v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 234 Ill.App. 339; Schlander v. Chicago & So. Traction Co., 253 Ill. 154, 97 N.E. 233; Greenwald v. B. & O. Ry. Co., 332 Ill. 627, 164 N.E. 144; Kitchell v. Chicago & I. M. Ry. Co., 285 Ill.App. 368, 2 N.E.2d 164; Grubb v. Ill. Term. Co., 366 Ill. 330, 8 N.E.2d 934; Sunnes v. I. C. Ry. Co., 201 Ill.App. 378; Dambacher v. I. C. Ry. Co., 288 Ill.App. 457, 6 N.E.2d 226; Cline v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 198 Ill.App. 163; Ridgway, Admr., v. I. C. Ry. Co., 24 N.E.2d 759; Goodman v. C. & E. I. Ry. Co., 248 Ill. 128; Sheehan v. C., N. S. & M. Ry. Co., 269 Ill.App. 477; I. W. & W. R. W. Co. v. Jones, 76 Ill. 311; W. Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Liderman, 187 Ill. 463; Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co., 309 Ill. 346; Bushman v. Calumet & L. C. Ry. Co., 214 Ill.App. 435; Johnson v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 72 S.W.2d 889; Kelsay v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 129 Mo. 362; K. C. S. Railroad Co. v. Shain, 105 S.W.2d 915. (d) There was no proof of negligence on the part of defendant. Negligence cannot be predicated on fractional seconds. Rollinson v. Wabash Ry. Co., 252 Mo. 541, 160 S.W. 994; Sullivan v. Gideon & N. I. Ry. Co., 271 S.W. 983; Goodson v. Schwandt, 300 S.W. 795; Burge v. Wabash Ry. Co., 148 S.W. 925. (3) Oral testimony that obstructions prevent one from seeing approaching trains on defendant's track is contrary to the physical facts and common knowledge, and cannot be accepted as substantial evidence. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Shain, 105 S.W.2d 915, 340 Mo. 1195; Dunn v. Alton Railroad Co., 104 S.W.2d 311, 340 Mo. 1037. (4) Oral testimony that proximity of the Illinois Central to defendant's track makes view of trains and signals indistinguishable is contrary to the physical facts and common knowledge, and cannot be accepted as substantial evidence. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Shain, 105 S.W.2d 915, 340 Mo. 1195; Dunn v. Alton Railroad Co., 104 S.W.2d 311, 340 Mo. 1037. (5) The humanitarian or last chance doctrine does not obtain in Illinois. Cox v. Term. Railroad Assn., 43 S.W.2d 571, 55 S.W.2d 685, 331 Mo. 910; C., B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Murowski, 179 Ill. 80, 53 N.E. 572; Haton v. I. C. Ry. Co., 76 S.W.2d 130; Chicago W. F. Coal Co. v. Moran, 210 Ill. 17; C. P. S. & Co. v. Chicago Ry. Co., 309 Ill. 352, 141 N.E. 175; W. C. S. Railroad Co. v. Liderman, 187 Ill. 463; Bushman v. C. & S. C. Ry. Co., 214 Ill.App. 435; City of Macon v. Holcomb, 205 Ill. 643; Connole v. E. St. L. & S. Ry. Co., 102 S.W.2d 581. (6) The failure to apply the law of Illinois in the determination of this controversy was a denial of full faith and credit to the laws of the State of Illinois in contravention of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. Jacobs v. Marks, 182 U.S. 583; Banholzer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 178 U.S. 402; Glenn v. Grath, 147 U.S. 360; Cox v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 43 S.W.2d 571, 55 S.W.2d 685, 331 Mo. 910.

B. Sherman Landau for respondent.

(1) In addition to the statutory duty of railroads, the common law imposes a duty on railroads to use reasonable care in the management of trains approaching dangerous crossings. Passwaters v. Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co., 181 Ill.App 44; Coyne v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 208 Ill.App. 425; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Scheffner, 106 Ill.App. 344, affirmed 209 Ill. 9. (a) The care required of a railway company is in proportion to the danger of injury at the place in question. Chicago & A. Railroad Co. v. Engle, 84 Ill. 397. (b) The defendant's duty to the truck (and the passengers therein), was not limited to the amount it was seen on the track. Krieger v. Aurora, E. & C. Ry. Co., 242 Ill. 544, reversing 148 Ill.App. 613. (c) The obligations, rights and duties of the defendant railroad and the deceased Arthur Wolf were mutual and reciprocal, and no greater degree of care was required of one than the other. The defendant railroad was held to the use of every reasonable effort to avoid inflicting or causing injury to the deceased. C., B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Lee, 87 Ill. 458; I. & St. L. Railroad Co. v. Stables, 62 Ill. 316; Galena & Chicago Union Railroad Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 264. (d) If defendant had slackened the speed of its train 1/5 of a second, the collision would have been averted; its failure to do so was negligent, and proximately caused the death of plaintiff's husband. Voorhees v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 215 Ill.App. 531; Bernier v. I. C. Ry. Co., 296 Ill. 470; L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596; Gann v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 319 Mo. 214, 6 S.W.2d 39; State ex rel. Weddle v. Trimble, 331 Mo. 1, 52 S.W.2d 864; Hoelzel v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 337 Mo. 61, 85 S.W.2d 126; Perkins v. Term. Railroad Assn., 340 Mo. 868, 102 S.W.2d 915; Smith v. Thompson, 142 S.W.2d 70; Tharp v. Thompson, 139 S.W.2d 1116. (e) The defendant is liable for its negligent failure to avoid the injury to the deceased in the light of the abundance of evidence contained in the record that it had ample opportunity so to do. Brown v. Ill. Terminal Co., 319 Ill. 326, 150 N.E. 242, affirming, 237 Ill.App. 145; Star Brewery Co. v. Hauck, 222 Ill. 348, 78 N.E. 827, 113 Am. St. Ry. 420, affirming, 126 Ill.App. 608; Walldren Express, etc., Co. v. Krug, 291 Ill. 472, 126 N.E. 97; Lake Shore, etc., Railroad Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596, 29 N.E. 692, 32 Am. St. Rep. 218; Chicago West Div. Railroad Co. v. Ryan, 131 Ill. 474, 23 N.E. 385; Collins v. McMullin, 225 Ill.App. 430; Pendleton v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 120 Ill.App. 405. (2) If the plaintiff's decedent, Arthur Wolf, did fail to stop or look or listen for an approaching train, such failure was not negligence per se, but was merely a factor for the jury to consider in passing on the question of due care. Elgin, J. & E. Railroad Co. v. Lawlor, 229 Ill. 621, affirming, 132 Ill.App. 280; Dukeman v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 237 Ill. 104, affirming, 142 Ill.App. 71; Winn v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 239 Ill. 132, affirming, 143 Ill.App. 71; Chicago & A. Railroad Co. v. Pulliam, 111 Ill.App. 305, affirmed, 208 Ill. 456; Douglas v. Wabash Ry. Co., 149 Ill.App. 612; Storm v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 156 Ill.App. 88; Henry v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 326 Ill. 219, affirming, 143 Ill.App. 265; Rosenthal v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 255 Ill. 552, affirming, 164 Ill.App. 221; Terre Haute & I. Railroad Co. v. Voelker, 129 Ill. 540, affirming, 31 Ill.App. 314; Winn v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 239 Ill. 132, affirming, 143 Ill.App. 71; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 239 Ill. 132, affirming, 143 Ill.App. 71; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Henry, 143 Ill.App. 265, affirmed, 236 Ill. 219; Watts v. Wabash Ry. Co., 219 Ill.App. 549. (a) It is a question for the jury, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, whether failure to look and listen, upon approaching a railroad crossing, constitutes contributory negligence. Eggert v. Pennsylvania Co., 189 Ill.App. 58; DeScheppers v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 179 Ill.App. 298; Illinois Cent. Railroad Co. v. Slater, 139 Ill. 190, affirming 39 Ill.App. 69; Chicago & E. I. Railroad Co. v. Schmitz, 211 Ill. 446, affirming 113 Ill.App. 295; Henry v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 236 Ill. 219, affirming, 143 Ill.App. 265; Douglas v. Wabash Ry. Co., 149 Ill.App. 612; Pocho v. Ill. Term. Ry. Co., 219 Ill.App. 598; Hamman v. I. C. Ry. Co., 188 Ill.App. 414; Fowler v. C., & E. I. Ry. Co., 234 Ill. 619, reversing, 138 Ill.App. 352. (b) There is a presumption in this case that the deceased exercised ordinary care, since self-preservation is a natural instinct....