Wray v. The Wabash Railroad Company
| Citation | 141 S.W. 449,159 Mo.App. 616 |
| Parties | WALLACE T. WRAY, Respondent, v. THE WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1911 |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.--Hon. A. H. Waller, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. L Minnis and Robertson & Robertson for appellant.
M. J Lilly and Phillips & Phillips for respondent.
In this action plaintiff claims that he was injured on the 12th day of February, 1910, by reason of a defect in one of defendant's locomotive engines. He was in charge of the engine in question in a train running from Moberly to Council Bluffs. He was an experienced engineer, but had not made a run over this part of defendant's road for a period of two years, although he had been familiar with it previously.
Plaintiff was injured by reason of his train coming in collision with that of a train of the Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad at a point where they cross, between the stations of Jameson and Pattonsburg. After passing through Jameson going in a northwesterly direction there is a down grade for something over a mile, after which the track is straight and level to said crossing. There was a board on the right hand side of the track at a distance of one-half mile in advance to indicate the crossing of the two roads, which is called the half mile board or crossing board.
The engine in question known as No 656, was equipped with an electric headlight which was operated by steam. The apparatus of the headlight was in good condition, but would not furnish light unless there was a pressure of 110 pounds of steam, and not a good light unless there was a pressure of at least 130 pounds. A man by the name of Zellner was the regular fireman and was familiar with the road. It was shown that the engine was of peculiar construction, in that, the distance between the crown sheet of the boiler head and the fire-box was about seven feet, a distance much greater than that of any other engine in use on that particular division, except one. It was shown that this engine did not "steam well." The fireman had previously had trouble with the engine for the cause mentioned.
On the trip in question the steam varied from 80 to 150 pounds, consequently, there was an absence of headlight whenever the steam fell below 110 pounds. After passing Jameson it was out or burned dimly, and from the time plaintiff reached the foot of the hill and came to level ground, where he shut off the engine, there was no headlight. The plaintiff knew that the crossing was somewhere ahead after he reached the foot of the hill, and from the time he reached the level track kept a lookout for the crossing board. He failed to see the board because of the failure of the headlight. In approaching the crossing there is a bridge where plaintiff realized that he was getting near the crossing board and shut off the steam and commenced to look, or as expressed by trainmen, to "feel" for the crossing board. He failed to see it for want of sufficient light, and the first knowledge he obtained that he had passed the board was when he saw a light from the fire-box of the Quincy, Omaha and Kansas City engine at the crossing, which was so near that he was unable to stop and the engine collided with the side of the other train, overturning the engine and breaking his leg.
It was an early winter morning, very cold and quite dark. It was shown that although the headlight was operated by steam it could be operated separately from the engine from the surplus steam that was required to operate the engine. There was evidence to the effect that under ordinary conditions the method at night for locating the crossing would be by the crossing board, and an engineer could not locate it under such condition unless his familiarity was such that he knew its location at night as well as by day.
The bridge before reaching the crossing board was a high truss bridge and it was shown that the fireman and a passenger, who was on the train, recognized the bridge by the sound the train made in passing over it, and by this means were able to locate the crossing board.
Defendant introduced evidence to the effect that for two or three miles the two roads ran parallel, and gradually approached each other before the crossing was reached; that the crew of the other train, few in number, testified that they had a headlight on their train and lights in the cab and signal lights on the caboose; that their train stopped at the proper place before starting over the crossing, that it sounded the whistle for the stop and again for the start; that the headlight of defendant was burning as it approached the crossing and it was discovered by them back a mile or two and was seen at different places as it approached the crossing. Defendant's evidence as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial