Moore v. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit Railway Co.

29 S.W. 9, 126 Mo. 265, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 173
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 9, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 29 S.W. 9 (Moore v. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit 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
Moore v. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit Railway Co., 29 S.W. 9, 126 Mo. 265, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 173 (Mo. 1895).

Opinion

Buegess, J.

— Action for personal injuries begun in the circuit court of Jackson county. The venue was subsequently changed to the circuit court of Pettis county on application of plaintiff where, on trial to a jury, plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $2,610. Defendant appeals.

The petition is in two counts. The first alleges that defendant was operating a line of railway from Kansas City to Independence, Missouri; “that on or about the tenth day of February, 1891, plaintiff was, with his wagon and team, traveling along and upon a street in the city of Independence along the side of defendant’s railroad track; that, while he was so traveling, one of defendant’s trains of cars going in a westerly direction and approaching the place where plaintiff and his team were, did negligently and unnecessarily and carelessly manage said engine and cars so as to cause plaintiff’s team to take fright and shove or back his wagon close to, upon and against the track of defendant, placing plaintiff and his wagon in' great peril, when then and there defendant, by its servants operating said engine and train, did carelessly and negligently run the same against the wagon of plaintiff, breaking the same and throwing the plaintiff out upon the street” and injuring him. “Plaintiff, avers that the servants of defendant managing said train, saw plaintiff, or by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence could have seen him, in said perilous position in time to have avoided the injury by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the management of said [269]*269train.” The second .count seeks to recover damages to plaintiff’s wagon and the loss of some kerosene oil therein, occasioned by the same accident which caused the injuries to his person complained of in the first count.

The answer of defendant was a general denial of the allegations of the petition; a plea of contributory negligence, “which negligence consisted in his driving a team of horses which he knew were easily frightened by the cars, on and along defendant’s right of way at a time when he knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care might have known, that defendant’s train was liable at any timé to pass, and that he failed to drive off said street as he should have done, and that in consequence of such negligence, his team became frightened and the accident and whatever damages plaintiff sustained to his person or property were occasioned thereby.” .-Plaintiff replied, denying the'new matter set up in the answer.

In order that the facts may be better understood, reference may be had to the following map:

[270]*270

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

Related

Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, Inc.
89 S.W.3d 432 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2002)
Perkins v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
49 S.W.2d 103 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Huston
1925 OK 652 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Davis v. City Light & Traction Co.
222 S.W. 884 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
Martin v. United Railways Co.
172 S.W. 406 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
Michael v. Kansas City Western Railway Co.
143 S.W. 67 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Geren v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
137 S.W. 1100 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Campbell v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
121 N.W. 429 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
Huss v. Heydt Bakery Co.
108 S.W. 63 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Moxley v. Southwest Missouri Electric Railway Co.
99 S.W. 763 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Klockenbrink v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad
72 S.W. 900 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Oates v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
58 L.R.A. 447 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Prewitt v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
36 S.W. 667 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
Sherwood v. Grand Avenue Railway Co.
33 S.W. 774 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
Eichorn v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
32 S.W. 993 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.W. 9, 126 Mo. 265, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-kansas-city-independence-rapid-transit-railway-co-mo-1895.