Zalotuchin v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtJohnson
Citation127 Mo. App. 577,106 S.W. 548
Decision Date02 December 1907
PartiesZALOTUCHIN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
106 S.W. 548
127 Mo. A. 577
ZALOTUCHIN
v.
METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.
December 2, 1907.
Rehearing Denied January 6, 1908.

1. STREET RAILROADS — CARE REQUIRED AT CROSSINGS.

It is the duty of a motorman on approaching a crossing where he has reason to anticipate the presence of vehicles and pedestrians to keep a close lookout and give warning of the presence of the car.

2. EVIDENCE — WEIGHT — TESTIMONY OPPOSING FACTS AND LAWS.

Testimony entirely inconsistent with physical facts and laws within the knowledge of common experience will be disregarded and treated as though it had not been spoken; hence, where it appeared that a street car could not have been more than 100 feet away when a driver proceeded

[106 S.W. 549]

from a place of safety to the crossing where an accident occurred, his testimony that the rapid progress of the car raised such a cloud of dust as to obscure the headlight so that it could not be seen over a block away must be disregarded.

3. STREET RAILROADS — COLLISION WITH VEHICLE — PROXIMATE CAUSE — CONCURRING NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER.

If a motorman was negligent in not ringing the bell or making an effort to reduce speed after a collision became imminent, negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding would not relieve the railway company from liability, on the ground that the negligent acts of its servant were the remote cause of plaintiff's injury.

4. NEGLIGENCE — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE — NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER.

Where plaintiff, a girl not over 16 years of age, was sitting in the rear of a vehicle, which her stepfather was driving, his negligence in driving into a dangerous position could not be imputed to plaintiff, her status being that of a mere passenger.

5. SAME — QUESTIONS FOR JURY — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF MINOR.

Where plaintiff, a girl not over 16 years old, was riding in a vehicle which her stepfather drove into a position of danger, whether she was negligent in not taking precautions to avoid the injury, held for the jury.

6. TRIAL — INSTRUCTIONS — NONDIRECTION.

Omission of plaintiff to ask, and of the court to give, instructions submitting the issue of negligence in a personal injury action, held mere nondirection, and not reversible error.

7. SAME — ISSUES NOT PLEADED.

In an action for negligence, refusal to give an instruction on contributory negligence is not error when that issue is not pleaded.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Hermann Brumback, Judge.

Action by Celia Zalotuchin against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Lucas, Frank G. Johnson, and Ben F. White, for appellant. Fred A. Boxley and E. B. Silverman, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.


Plaintiff alleges she was injured in a collision between a wagon in which she was riding and a street car operated by defendant, and that the injury was the direct result of defendant's negligence. She recovered judgment in the sum of $200, and the cause is here on the appeal of defendant.

At the time of the injury, which occurred on the 19th day of July, 1903, plaintiff was a minor. Her exact age is not disclosed, but, from facts appearing in the record, it is fair to assume she was not over 16 years old. The place of the injury was at the corner of Guinnotte and Michigan avenues in Kansas City. Defendant operated a doubletrack street railway along Guinnotte avenue, the course of which lies east and west. Eastbound cars ran over the south track, and west-bound cars over the other track. A brother of plaintiff's stepfather lived on the southwest corner of the intersection of the two avenues, and plaintiff accompanied her mother and stepfather on a visit to his family. They rode in a one-horse wagon, made the visit, and at about 10 o'clock in the evening started to return. When they seated themselves in the wagon, the horse faced north, with his head about five feet from the south rail of the south track. The mother and stepfather occupied the only seat, and the latter acted as driver. Plaintiff sat on a box placed behind the seat, with her face towards the rear of the wagon, and carried a lighted lantern. There were other occupants of the vehicle, but their number and description are not important. There were no street lamps on Guinnotte avenue, and, according to all the evidence, it was very dark. The stepfather testified that it was his purpose to go straight across the tracks, and just before he started the horse he looked up and down the street to see if a car were approaching. His view to the west was unobstructed for perhaps five or six blocks, and he saw no car. Plaintiff also testified that she looked to the west and saw none. The driver started the horse, and had driven him on to the south track, when, looking again to the west, he saw the headlight of a car which then was about a block away and approaching at a very rapid rate of speed. Plaintiff says she looked at the same time, saw the car, and called to the driver to hasten. He urged the horse, and increased its speed, but before the crossing could be accomplished, the car violently collided with the wagon, and the injury resulted. All of the witnesses introduced by plaintiff testified that the car was running at the highest possible rate of speed, and that the bell was not rung, nor was any warning given of its approach. They state further that the motorman made no effort prior to the collision to reduce speed. It is admitted that the car was provided with an electric headlight; but, in explanation of the failure of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Van Houten v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 19033.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 7, 1938
    ...S.W. 93, l.c. 97; Nugent v. Kauffman Milling Co., 131 Mo. 241, l.c. 252-253, 33 S.W. 428, l.c. 430-431; Zalotuchin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. App. 577, l.c. 584-585, 106 S.W. 548, l.c. 550; Conduitt v. Trenton Gas & E. Co., 326 Mo. 133, l.c. 145, 31 S.W. (2d) 21, l.c. 26; High v. Quincy, ......
  • Sutton v. Otis Elevator Co., 4305
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 20, 1926
    ...of Greenfield, 130 N.W. 61; Groth v. Thomann, 86 N.W. 178; Hicks v. Burgess (Ala.) 64 So. 290; Zalotuchin v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 106 S.W. 548. In an action for personal or property damage grounded upon negligence, the vital question to be determined, in so far as liability of the de......
  • Edwards v. Woods., No. 35459.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 17, 1938
    ...no probative force. Payne v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 136 Mo. 562; Kibble v. Q.O. & K.C. Ry. Co., 285 Mo. 603; Zalotuchin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. App. 577; Davidson v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 164 Mo. App. 701; Nowlen v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 58 S.W. (2d) 324. (5) Courts are not bound to giv......
  • King v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 18242.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 6, 1936
    ...S.W. 93, l.c. 97; Nugent v. Kauffman Milling Co., 131 Mo. 241, l.c. 252-253, 33 S.W. 428, l.c. 430-431; Zalotuchin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. App. 577, l.c. 584-585, 106 S.W. 548, l.c. 550. (b) An instruction, as here, before being modified by the court, advising a jury that "it is the du......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Van Houten v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 19033.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 7, 1938
    ...S.W. 93, l.c. 97; Nugent v. Kauffman Milling Co., 131 Mo. 241, l.c. 252-253, 33 S.W. 428, l.c. 430-431; Zalotuchin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. App. 577, l.c. 584-585, 106 S.W. 548, l.c. 550; Conduitt v. Trenton Gas & E. Co., 326 Mo. 133, l.c. 145, 31 S.W. (2d) 21, l.c. 26; High v. Quincy, ......
  • Sutton v. Otis Elevator Co., 4305
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 20, 1926
    ...of Greenfield, 130 N.W. 61; Groth v. Thomann, 86 N.W. 178; Hicks v. Burgess (Ala.) 64 So. 290; Zalotuchin v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 106 S.W. 548. In an action for personal or property damage grounded upon negligence, the vital question to be determined, in so far as liability of the de......
  • Edwards v. Woods., No. 35459.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 17, 1938
    ...no probative force. Payne v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 136 Mo. 562; Kibble v. Q.O. & K.C. Ry. Co., 285 Mo. 603; Zalotuchin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. App. 577; Davidson v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 164 Mo. App. 701; Nowlen v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 58 S.W. (2d) 324. (5) Courts are not bound to giv......
  • King v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 18242.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 6, 1936
    ...S.W. 93, l.c. 97; Nugent v. Kauffman Milling Co., 131 Mo. 241, l.c. 252-253, 33 S.W. 428, l.c. 430-431; Zalotuchin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 127 Mo. App. 577, l.c. 584-585, 106 S.W. 548, l.c. 550. (b) An instruction, as here, before being modified by the court, advising a jury that "it is the du......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT