Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Higgins v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.

Higgins v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.

95 S.W. 863, 197 Mo. 300, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 32
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 19, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 95 S.W. 863 (Higgins v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Higgins v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co., 95 S.W. 863, 197 Mo. 300, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. 1906).

Opinion

GRAVES, J.

Action by wife for the alleged wrongful killing of her husband. Plaintiff is the widow of John Higgins, who was seriously injured at about 6:20 p. m. on the 4th day of November, 1901, by a car, operated by defendant, colliding with a wagon driven by deceased. From the injuries thus received, Higgins died some three days later. In the lower court plaintiff had judgment for $5,000 and defendant appealed; hence, .the controversy here.

Defendant is a street railway corporation and at [306]*306the time was operating a donble-track railway on "Wash street in the city of St. Louis. West-bound cars ran upon the north track, and east-bound cars upon the south track. From Fourteenth street for some distance west these two tracks ran east and west. The tracks came into Wash street from the south on Fourteenth street, at the intersection of which with Wash street, the turn west was made.

The amended petition, upon which the case was tried, for grounds of negligence charges: first, an unreasonable rate of speed; second, a failure to ring the bell or sound the gong or to give warning of the approaching car; and third, a failure to display a light to warn travelers of an approaching car. The answer is first, a general denial, second, a plea of contributory negligence, and third, section 1473 of oridnance 19991, .which is as follows:

“Any person who shall in this city ride or drive any animals in any highway, thoroughfare or public place, quicker than or beyond a moderate gait, or shall ride or drive any such animals so as to cause such animal or vehicle attached thereto to come into collision with or strike any object or person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The reply was a general denial of all new matter set up in the answer.

The evidence

The undisputed evidence shows that defendant’s double track comes in from the south on Fourteenth street and turns west on Wash street; that Fourteenth street is sixty feet in width; that from Fourteenth street to Fifteenth street is 376 feet; that Fifteenth street is sixty feet in width; that from Fifteenth street to Sixteenth street is 376 feet; that Sixteenth street is sixty feet in width; that from Sixteenth street to Seventeenth street is 376 feet; and that Seventeenth street is sixty feet in width; that Fifteenth street as it comes

[308]*308

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

Related

Kansas City Terminal Railway Co. v. Kansas City Transit, Inc.
359 S.W.2d 698 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1962)
Tilly v. Flippin
237 F.2d 364 (Tenth Circuit, 1956)
Virginia L. Tilly, Administratrix of the Estate of A. L. Tilly, Deceased v. Joe Flippin and Ferguson Steere Motor Company, a Corporation, Mary Ellen Carpenter, Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur D. Carpenter, Jr., Deceased Mary Ellen Carpenter, Administratrix of the Estate of James Arthur Carpenter, Deceased v. Joe Flippin and Ferguson Steere Motor Company, a Corporation
237 F.2d 364 (Tenth Circuit, 1956)
Borrson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
172 S.W.2d 835 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
White v. Montoya
126 P.2d 471 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1942)
Sanchez v. Contract Trucking Co.
117 P.2d 815 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)
Wallace v. Woods
102 S.W.2d 91 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
Blue Bar Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Hudspeth
216 P. 246 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1923)
Monroe v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
249 S.W. 644 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Allen West Commission Co. v. Richter
228 S.W. 827 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1921)
Sorensen v. Selden-Breck Construction Co.
154 N.W. 222 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1915)
Osborn v. Wabash Railroad
166 S.W. 1118 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Whimster v. Holmes
164 S.W. 236 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Battles v. United Railways Co. of St Louis
161 S.W. 614 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety Gate Co.
152 S.W. 52 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Mooney v. Mooney
148 S.W. 896 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Burge v. Wabash Railroad
148 S.W. 925 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Peters v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
131 S.W. 917 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Brandt v. United Railways Co.
132 S.W. 39 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Brannock v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
126 S.W. 552 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.W. 863, 197 Mo. 300, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-st-louis-suburban-railway-co-mo-1906.