Lane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

33 S.W. 645, 132 Mo. 4, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 217
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedDecember 23, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 33 S.W. 645 (Lane v. Missouri Pacific 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
Lane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 33 S.W. 645, 132 Mo. 4, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 217 (Mo. 1895).

Opinions

Shebwood, J.

Plaintiff, the widow of John H. •Lane, brought this action against defendant company to recover damages for the death of her husband, which was caused by his coming in contact with the engine of [10]*10a moving train of defendant’s at a point in the town of Leeds where the Raytown public road crosses the track of defendant’s railway.

The train at the time of the collision was moving south and Lane was going east. The date was the twenty-ninth of July, 1892, and the hour about 9:45 p. m. This intersection of the lines of the highways occurs practically at right angles, the public road running east and west, the railway north and south, and the ground for at least a quarter of a mile westward from the crossing is substantially on a level with that intersection and the roads which form it, and the same is true of the ground for over one fourth of a mile northward of the Raytown road. Something like two hundred yards north of the crossing, and ■ extending northward along the tracks for a distance of about one hundred yards, a cut begins, which at the deepest point is but slightly over two feet deep. A diagram of the scene of the accident and of the surrounding country is hereto subjoined, and will assist in understanding the situation.

At the point of the accident and' for a mile or so northward, the track of the Kansas City, Osceola & Southern Railroad (called by the witnesses the Osceola road), runs parallel to, and about sixty-five feet west of, the Missouri Pacific track. These railroad tracks on the east, and the Raytown road on the south, form an angle in which, at a distance of about one-hundred and fifty feet west of defendant’s track, and something like one hundred feet north of the center of the Raytown road, stood the dwelling house of Renick. Within that angle a meadow stretches northward from that dwelling house for a distance of eight hundred and seventy feet above the crossing, and the meadow extends about one fourth of a mile westward of the Osceola road’s right of way. At the north line of the [11]*11meadow begins a corn field of equal extent, and adjoining, that on the north was a woodland pasture. Between the railroad tracks mentioned were weeds growing, for a distance of one fourth of a mile, and the testimony tends to show they were, some of them, six or seven feet high, and the corn in the field from eight to ten feet high.

The only obstructions to a view of defendant’s track were the dwelling house, the weeds, and the woodland pasture, in the way of a person traveling on the Raytown road, from seeing defendant’s track. And at a point on the Raytown road one hundred and seventy feet west of the west rail of defendant’s track, a person going eastward on that road could, as he made progress toward the crossing, continuously see that track as it stretches straight northward for a distance’of eight hundred feet. There is other testimony on the part of plaintiff to the effect that a person if standing or sitting on a wagon, if traveling on the Raytown road and going eastward on reaching the Osceola road crossing, could readily and plainly see an engine about two hundred to two hundred and fifty yards up the track to the northward. At least four witnesses for plaintiff heard the whistle of the train on the night of the accident, a calm, still night, at the Mason crossing, one mile almost due north of the one where the accident occurred, and also heard the rumbling of the train. And it was shown by actual measurement, as contradistinguished from guesswork that it was eleven feet up from the rails to the lowest point of the headlight of a locomotive, and fifteen feet to its highest point, so that this would seem to readily overcome, especially if a person were on a wagon, any ordinary obstructions of the nature already mentioned. This is true of all the obstructions except Renick’s house, and certainly this could obstruct the vision for only a few feet, and besides there is testi[14]*14mony to the effect that one hundred yards west of the Baytown crossing, that house would not obstruct the view of defendant’s track.

[12]

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

Related

Cole-Collister Fire Protection District v. City of Boise
468 P.2d 290 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1970)
Borrson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
172 S.W.2d 835 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
Park v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
70 F.2d 670 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)
Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co. v. Dial
65 S.W.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1933)
Alexander v. Barnes Grocery Co.
7 S.W.2d 370 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1928)
Keel, Adm'r. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
114 S.E. 761 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Lawrence v. Denver & R. G. R. Co.
174 P. 817 (Utah Supreme Court, 1918)
Dutcher v. Wabash Railroad
145 S.W. 63 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Weigman v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway
123 S.W. 38 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Holland v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
109 S.W. 19 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
103 S.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
McNulty v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
101 S.W. 1082 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Sanguinette v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co.
95 S.W. 386 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Everett v. Butler
91 S.W. 890 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Day v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co.
114 Mo. App. 479 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Turney v. Ewins
71 S.W. 543 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Kreyling v. O'Reilly
71 S.W. 372 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Cogan v. Cass Avenue & Fair Grounds Railway Co.
73 S.W. 738 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
State v. Goddard
62 S.W. 697 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 S.W. 645, 132 Mo. 4, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-missouri-pacific-railway-co-mo-1895.