Coyne v. United Railways Co.

98 S.W. 110, 121 Mo. App. 114, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 456
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 27, 1906
StatusPublished

This text of 98 S.W. 110 (Coyne v. United Railways Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coyne v. United Railways Co., 98 S.W. 110, 121 Mo. App. 114, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 456 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

GOODE, J.

Action for damages for personal injuries. The petition charged that while plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s cars on Sixth street and near Wash street in the city of St. Louis, defendant’s servants in charge of said car and appliances for operating the same, so negligently managed and controlled said [116]*116car and appliances as to canse said oar to sustain violent and unusual lurches and shocks, and the plaintiff to sustain a violent and unusual shock from said car and from the electricity, its motive power, whereby she was greatly injured upon her spine, body and limbs, and was permanently shocked and injured in her nervous system and injured internally; that by said injuries so sustained, plaintiff had suffered and would suffer great pain of body and mind; had been disabled from her labor and avocation, and would incur large expenses for medicines, medical attention and surgical attention and nursing, to her damage in the sum of ten thousand dollars, for which she prayed damages. As originally filed the petition did not contain the words in italics. These were inserted by way of amendment after plaintiff’s evidence had been received. The amendment was permitted over the objection of defendant’s counsel, who insisted it presented an entirely new issue which they were unprepared to meet. The evidence for plaintiff showed that on the evening of December 5, 1904, she took passage on a car of defendant’s Spring avenue line at the corner of Sixth and Locust streets, her destination being the intersection of Dayton and Leffingwell streets. The route of the car was north on Sixth street to Wash and thence west on Wash. The car proceeded northwardly along Sixth street until it wras within a hundred feet of Wash, where it was stopped because of a blockade of cars at the interesection of Sixth and Wash streets. Southbound cars on Sixth street, as well as north bound cars, turn into Wash street; hence there is a “Y” at Wash and Sixth formed by curved tracks intended to carry cars from Sixth into Wash. This diagram shows the position of the tracks:

[117]*117 JLW19h2LgcBa3sGDT7iLOC1jyE0c5vQElLmrYYUdCSpq0lPR2J0rSlHpIjRkPaYkFBS5q2GKFrZcdg5VADPuha2TFo7p4dABWtmrSVAOjrSKxJW76WSh661ilQHmrADV3rXQB4ILhFtqFrdZG2FLQaLxJ7yfLZMfinNUv0ciRmF4mmXyhD1sr6tvzKeYmWSh6yVta3FVTO89VCVkCO0dy31UvdehcA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Malloy v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.
73 S.W. 159 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Hennessy v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.
73 S.W. 162 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 S.W. 110, 121 Mo. App. 114, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coyne-v-united-railways-co-moctapp-1906.