Pedigo v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

299 S.W. 110, 220 Mo. App. 1175, 1927 Mo. App. LEXIS 32
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 4, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 S.W. 110 (Pedigo v. St. Louis-San Francisco 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
Pedigo v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 299 S.W. 110, 220 Mo. App. 1175, 1927 Mo. App. LEXIS 32 (Mo. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinions

* Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Appeal and Error, 4CJ, p. 1174, n. 99; Death, 17CJ, p. 1316, n. 82; p. 1317, n. 88 New; Railroads, 33Cyc, p. 1129, n. 68. This is an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff's husband, resulting from a collision between a Dodge touring car he was driving and the locomotive engine of one of defendant's passenger trains, at the intersection of Themis and Water streets, in the city of Cape Girardeau. The collision occurred shortly after noon on November 1, 1922. This action was commenced on January 9, 1923. A trial was had, with a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of six thousand dollars. The court granted defendant a new trial on the grounds (1) that the court had erred in refusing to give an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence requested by defendant, and (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. From the order granting a new trial the plaintiff appealed to this court. Upon that appeal the order of the court granting a new trial was affirmed by this court on the grounds (1) that the decedent's contributory negligence defeated his recovery for any primary negligence on the part of the defendant, and (2) that there was no evidence sufficient to support the verdict under the humanitarian rule. After the cause went back to the court below the plaintiff amended her petition. Upon a retrial of the cause, with a jury, the defendant again requested an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, which the court refused to give. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of six thousand dollars, and the defendant appeals.

Upon this appeal the defendant assigns reversible error for the refusal of its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence.

The petition as amended charges that on or about November 1, 1922, at about 12:30 P.M., an automobile which plaintiff's husband was driving eastwardly on Themis street at the intersection of Themis and Water streets was struck by the locomotive engine of one of defendant's trains, whereby he sustained injuries from which he died, and that his death directly resulted from the negligence of defendant, as follows, to-wit: First, that defendant's agents and servants in charge of and operating said engine and train, negligently operated its said engine and train at a greater rate of speed than eight miles per hour, in violation of an ordinance of the city of Cape Girardeau; second, that defendant's agents and servants in charge of and operating said engine and train, negligently failed to sound a bell at a distance of at least eighty rods from Themis street and to continue sounding a bell at intervals until *Page 1179 said engine and train had crossed over Themis street; and, third, that defendant's agents and servants in charge of and operating said engine and train saw or by the exercise of ordinary care could have seen plaintiff's husband in a position of imminent peril in time thereafter by the exercise of ordinary care, with the brakes and appliances at hand, with safety to the crew and passengers, to have diminished the speed of said engine and train, or to have stopped said engine and train, or to have sounded a signal warning of the approach of said engine and train, and thereby avoided striking said automobile.

The facts as disclosed by the record upon the present appeal are in several respects materially different from the facts as disclosed by the record upon the former appeal.

The facts as disclosed by the present record are substantially as follows:

Water street runs north and south along the river front next to the levee on the east. Themis street runs east and west, and intersects Water street from the west. Broadway, which is north of Themis street runs east and west, and intersects Water street from the west. Independence street, which is south of Themis street, runs east and west, and intersects Water street from the west. The main track of defendant's railroad runs north and south over and along the east side of Water street. There is an old passenger depot located north of Broadway on the east side of the main track. Looking southward there is a left curve in the track just north of the old depot. Broadway, Themis and Independence streets terminate at Water street. The distance from Broadway to Themis street is 345 feet. The width of Broadway from building line to building line is about fifty-six feet. The sidewalks on Broadway are about ten feet wide. The width of Broadway from curb to curb is about thirty-five feet. The distance from the north building line of Broadway to the old passenger depot is 150 feet. The width of Themis street from building line to building line is fifty-six feet. The sidewalks on Themis street are about ten feet wide. The width of Themis street from curb to curb is thirty-five feet. The distance from Themis street to the old depot is 550 feet. The distance from the building line on the west side of Water street to the west rail of the main track of defendant's railroad is about thirty-nine feet. The distance from the curb on the west side of Water street to the west rail of the main track is twenty-eight feet. The width of the sidewalk on the west side of Water street is about eleven feet. There is about a one per cent downgrade in the track from the old depot to Themis street. There are no obstructions to the view between the old depot and the intersection of Themis and Water streets. Though Broadway, *Page 1180 Themis and Independence streets terminate at Water street, they were at the time of the accident and for a long time prior thereto much traveled by vehicles going east to the levee on the river front, and in so traveling the vehicles passed over the defendant's railroad tracks as though the streets extended east over the levee. In fact, the whole levee was much traveled by vehicles. Decedent was engaged in the passenger transfer business. At the time of the accident the Steamer Bald Eagle was landing or had just landed at the levee. Decedent was driving his Dodge touring car east on Themis street and across the intersection of Themis and Water streets. As the automobile crossed the main track of defendant's railroad on Water street, it was struck by the engine of a southbound passenger train. The automobile was shoved or carried on the pilot of the engine a distance variously estimated by the witnesses at 125 to 160 feet before the train stopped.

A number of witnesses, including the engineer in charge of the engine which collided with decedent's automobile, were produced and testified, on behalf of plaintiff. The fireman did not testify. In fact, no evidence whatever was produced on behalf of defendant.

O.E. Maybrey testified: "I saw the automobile come down Themis street and then I saw the train coming down across Broadway. The front wheels of the automobile had cleared both rails of the track and the rear wheels were between the rails of the track when the engine struck the automobile. When the front wheels of the automobile were at the west rail of the track, the engine was about half way down the block between Broadway and Themis street. I could not tell exactly. The engine struck the automobile about half way from the center of the automobile to the rear. I did not hear any bell rung or whistle sounded. The automobile wasn't going very fast as it went upon the track. From the time the automobile emerged into Water street until the time of the collision, it was going east. It did not make any turns either to the north or to the south. It went straight ahead.

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

Related

Cooper v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
202 S.W.2d 42 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 S.W. 110, 220 Mo. App. 1175, 1927 Mo. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedigo-v-st-louis-san-francisco-railway-co-moctapp-1927.