Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Degonia v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

Degonia v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

123 S.W. 807, 224 Mo. 564, 1909 Mo. LEXIS 22
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided December 23, 1909·Published·Cited by 82 cases

Opinions

GRAVES, J.

Plaintiff, Ida Degonia, sues under section 2864, Revised Statutes 1899', for the alleged negligent killing of her husband by one of defendant’s passenger trains coming from the north and approaching the depot at Mineral Point, Missouri. The negligence charged in the petition is as follows:

“Plaintiff further states that the injuries to and subsequent death of her said husband as aforesaid was caused by and was the direct result of the wantonness, recklessness and carelessness of defendant’s agents and servants in charge of the train aforesaid in this: they negligently ran .the said train at a high rate of speed; negligently failed to keep a proper watch or lookout for deceased and other persons or objects in and upon or about the track of defendant at the point where deceased was killed and at the places along such track in the near vicinity thereof; negligently failed to slow up or to stop said locomotive and cars [569]*569upon approaching the deceased and upon the discovery of his peril; negligently failed to *give any alarm, sound the whistle or ring the hell of the said locomotive aforesaid, and negligently failed to give to deceased and others there present any sort of warning or notice of the approach of said train. And plaintiff avers and states the facts to be that defendant’s agents and servants in charge of said train well knew at the time that many persons frequented its track in the vicinity of the station aforesaid, and at other points between the station and the point where her husband was killed, and well knew that deceased and others of the defendant’s employees were required to work in and upon the track of defendant at or near the point where he was killed, and well knew that it was highly dangerous and unsafe to lives of persons to run its cars and to manage its train as hereinbefore set forth, or by the exercise of reasonable care could have, known all said facts. And so plaintiff says that had defendant, its agents and servants in charge of the said train exercised1 the care and caution incumbent upon them in the management and handling of the locomotive and cars aforesaid and keeping the proper observance and lookout for the safety of persons who might be upon or about its said track, then the injury to and the death of her said husband could and would have been prevented.”

The answer was a general denial and coupled therewith a count charging contributory negligence. Reply was in usual form.

Upon the trial plaintiff obtained a verdict for $5,000, upon which judgment was entered. After all formal and necessary steps were taken, the defendant appealed the cause to this court.

The case is such that it demands a detailed statement of facts. Mineral Point at the date of the accident in 1904 was an unincorporated village having a population variously estimated at two hundred to two [570]*570hundred and fifty inhabitants. The main line of defendant’s road runs through said village practically from north to south. Most of the little village is to the west of the railway tracks. The switch yards are practically all north of the depot, although on the east side of the main track are two switch tracks, the east one of which bas its southern terminus about opposite the depot, and the west one of which has its southern terminus about two hundred to three hundred feet south of the depot. On the west side of the main line is a switch track which is entirely north of the depot and north of a public road and crossing hereinafter to he commented upon in the course of the statement. To the west of the depot ran what is known as the Potosi branch of the defendant’s road, which branch line connected with the switch on the west side of the main line, and after passing the depot took a southwesterly course. Less than five hundred feet east of the depot and defendant’s tracks runs what is called Mill Creek, and there is hut slight territory between the right-of-way and creek to be occupied by the villagers.

Now to the locus of the accident. To the north of the depot was a public road, said by one of the witnesses to be an extension of what is called Fifth Street in the town. This Fifth street is sixty feet in width. At this point the right-of-way is three hundred feet wide o.r one hundred and fifty feet on each side. At this road crossing the defendant had cross fences and cattle-guards. This is well illustrated by a photograph in evidence, which photograph we incorporate herein at this point as a part of the statement, and mark it “A.”

[571]

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

Degonia v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co., 123 S.W. 807, 224 Mo. 564, 1909 Mo. LEXIS 22 (Mo. 1909).

123 S.W. 807 (Degonia v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Banta v. Union Pacific Railroad
242 S.W.2d 34 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1951)
Jensen v. Kansas City
238 S.W.2d 305 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1951)
Davidson v. Gardner
172 F.2d 188 (Seventh Circuit, 1949)
Graham v. Thompson
212 S.W.2d 770 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1948)
Wellinger v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis
183 S.W.2d 908 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1944)
Hollister v. A. S. Aloe Co.
156 S.W.2d 606 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1941)
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Hostetter
140 S.W.2d 21 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1940)
Evans v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
131 S.W.2d 604 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
Mayfield v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
85 S.W.2d 116 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Goodwin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
72 S.W.2d 988 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1934)
Pevesdorf v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
64 S.W.2d 939 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Ritz v. Cousins Lumber Co.
59 S.W.2d 1072 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1933)
Wuest v. Dorman
54 S.W.2d 1000 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Barraclough v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
52 S.W.2d 998 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
Cervillo v. Manhattan Oil Co.
49 S.W.2d 183 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Gandy v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
44 S.W.2d 634 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1931)
Burch v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
40 S.W.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1931)
Callahan v. Kansas City
41 S.W.2d 894 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)
Detmering v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
36 S.W.2d 112 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)
Phillips v. Thompson
35 S.W.2d 382 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)