Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.

71 S.W. 1081, 98 Mo. App. 214, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 68
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 2, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 S.W. 1081 (Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railway 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
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co., 71 S.W. 1081, 98 Mo. App. 214, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 68 (Mo. Ct. App. 1903).

Opinion

BROADDUS, J.

The plaintiff’s cause of action is substantially as follows: That on the 30th day of December, 1899, an engineer of defendant in charge of its passenger locomotives, and while hauling one of its passenger trains, negligently ran said engine into and against one of plaintiff’s engines, thereby greatly damaging the same; that said injury was inflicted within the corporate limits of Kansas City, Missouri, at a point where one of plaintiff’s tracks crosses the track of what is known as the Kansas City Belt Bailway Company, then being used by the defendant. The act of negligence is charged as follows, viz.: “That defendant’s said engineer,.in charge of its said engine, which struck and injured plaintiff’s engine as aforesaid, should have stopped said engine before reaching said crossing, as by custom, common prudence and law he was required to do, but he negligently and carelessly failed to do so; that as he approached said crossing where said accident occurred, and at the time of said accident, he was running defendant’s said engine at a rapid and reckless rate of speed, that is, at a speed of not less than fifteen miles an hour, which rate of speed was, under the circumstances and surroundings, negligent and dangerous, and was also in violation of an ordinance then in force in said city of Kansas City.” Plaintiff then sets out said ordinance, after which it further alleges: “And that said engineer in charge of defendant’s said engine either saw plaintiff’s said engine at said crossing in time to have stopped defendant’s engine and thereby avoided said accident, or negligently failed to look ahead of him, as he should have done, but which of the two is true, plaintiff is unable to state. ’ ’

The defendant’s answer was a general denial, and [217]*217other allegations constituting negligence on the part of the plaintiff which contributed to the collision, substantially as follows: That plaintiff at the time of the alleged collision was obstructing a street of said city in violation of a certain ordinance thereof; that plaintiff’s servants at the time knew that defendant’s train was due at the point where the collision occurred, or by the exercise of ordinary care might have so known, but negligently failed to exercise their knowledge of the said fact or the means of ascertaining it, which omission upon their part was the cause of said accident; and that plaintiff negligently failed to prescribe rules for the use of its track crossing that of the defendant for its own protection, which omission of duty directly contributed to its injury.

The finding was for the defendant which the court, on motion, set aside; from which action of the court in setting aside said finding defendant appealed.

On the trial the accompanying crude diagram was used which may, to some extent help to an understanding of the case:

[218]*218

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

Related

State v. Adams
532 S.W.2d 524 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 S.W. 1081, 98 Mo. App. 214, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-pacific-railway-co-v-chicago-great-western-railway-co-moctapp-1903.