Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Sanguinette v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co.

Sanguinette v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co.

95 S.W. 386, 196 Mo. 466, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 220, 196 Mo. 467
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMay 22, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 95 S.W. 386 (Sanguinette v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre 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
Sanguinette v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co., 95 S.W. 386, 196 Mo. 466, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 220, 196 Mo. 467 (Mo. 1906).

Opinion

BURGESS, P. J.

This an action by plaintiff for five thousand dollars damages on account of the death of her husband, Henry A. Sanguinette, who was killed on the 16th day of August, 1902, through and by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant.

The petition of plaintiff, leaving off the formal parts, is as follows:

“Plaintiff states that the defendant is and was at all the times hereinafter mentioned a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, owns and operates a line of railway from Riverside in Jef[471]*471ferson county, to Doe Run in St. Francois county, all in the State of Missouri. Plaintiff states that she is the widow and survivor of Henry A. Sanguinette, deceased.
“Plaintiff states that the tracks of defendant are laid across a certain public highway in said Jefferson county, being known as the county road leading from Festus to Rush Tower in said county; that said crossing is at a point on defendant’s road immediately south of its station known as Genevieve; the tracks of defendant at said crossing being on a grade a few feet higher than the natural level of the ground at that point and higher than the level of the county road on either side of said tracks, so that persons using said county road at that point are compelled to go up the grade aforesaid to get onto the tracks of defendant.
“Plaintiff says that on the 16th day of August, A. D. 1902, while her husband, Henry A. Sanguinette, now deceased, was being driven and lawfully riding in a two-horse farm wagon along and upon said highway at the point of crossing defendant’s tracks as aforesaid, a certain locomotive and train of cars were driven along and upon said railroad of defendant up to, upon and across said public highway at the said crossing thereof, and the agents and servants of defendant in charge of said locomotive and train of cars wholly failed to ring the bell thereon at a distance of eighty rods from said crossing and to keep the same ringing until said locomotive had crossed said highway, and also wholly failed to sound a steam whistle at the distance of eighty rods from said crossing, and to sound the said whistle at intervals until said locomotive had crossed said highway, by means and in consequence of which default and neglect of defendant’s said servants and agents said locomotive ran and struck with great force and violence upon and against the two-horse wagon aforesaid in which her said husband was riding and the same was overturned, broken and crushed, and her said husband was with great [472]*472force and violence thrown from and ont of said two-horse farm wagon to the ground, or into the cattle-guard of defendant, that he was instantly killed, his neck was broken and his body otherwise badly bruised and crushed.
“Plaintiff says that by reason of the premises she has been damaged in the sum of five thousand dollars, for which she prays judgment.”

Defendant’s answer was a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence on the part of deceased, to which answer there was a replication denying generally new matter therein pleaded.

■ The trial before the court and jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for five thousand dollars. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s road, known as the Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway, extends from Doe Run in St. Francois county, in a northerly direction to Riverside, in Jefferson county. There is a road crossing this railway, known as the Ste. Genevieve road, running in an easterly direction, and crossing the railroad at a point a short distance south of Genevieve station. On the day of the injury, the deceased, Henry Sanguinette, his son, James' Sanguinette, and V. E. Cannopa were driving east on this public road; it was about six o’clock in the afternoon of the 16th of August, 1902; Cannopa and James Sanguinette sat on the front seat of the wagon and Henry Sanguinette immediately behind them; James occupied the driver’s seat and Cannopa sat on his left. Henry Sanguinette owned one of the horses in the team and Cannopa the other. They had been engaged threshing during the week and were on their way home, they living some distance east of the crossing. It was in the testimony that all the parties were familiar with the crossing, having driven over it on several occasions, and that they also knew the usual time of the train passing north. On this occasion the train was about an hour late and was running, perhaps, thirty-five miles [473]*473an hour. As the team was going over the crossing it was struck hy the train.

On the part of the plaintiff, the following testimony was offered:

Katie Sanguinette, the plaintiff, testified that she was the widow of Henry Sanguinette, who was forty-three years old at the time of his death; that his hearing and eyesight were good; that in going to Eestus, Missouri, he used the road known as the Ste. Genevieve road, which crossed the Mississippi Eiver & Bonne Terre railroad; that he had lived in that neighborhood all of his life and traveled the road on an average of once a week.

V. E. Cannopa testified that during the week prior to the death of Henry Sanguinette he (the witness) had worked with him; that they were engaged in threshing. On their way home on Saturday afternoon of the accident, he and young James Sanguinette and Henry Sanguinette, the deceased, rode together in an ordinary farm wagon, James, who was about nineteen, sitting in front on the driver’s seat to the right, and witness to his left, Henry Sanguinette sitting immediately behind them; that they got to the Genevieve crossing about 6:30 in the afternoon; that all three of the parties were familiar with the crossing; the horses were in a walk and were going about two and one-half or threemiles an hour; that when they got up near the railroad he looked for a train, hut saw none and then continued to drive on; they did not stop at any time; that they were right on the crossing when they discovered the train; that the engine struck the front wheels of the wagon; that he did not hear any whistle or hell; that his hearing and eyesight were good; that Sanguinette’s hoy was driving the wagon; one of the horses in the team belonged to Henry Sanguinette, and the other one to witness; that as they were driving toward the track there was a big lot of 'weeds there and when he was past the weeds he [474]*474saw the train, and it was too late to jump. The testimony as to the weeds being on the right of way was objected to by defendant. On cross-examination the witness was asked the following questions:

“Q. You did see a train that day, Mr. Cannopa? A. Yes, sir, after I had approached the track when it was about thirty yards away.
‘ ‘ Q. You say you saw the train when it was thirty yards from the crossing? A. After we got on the crossing it was about the trestle.
“Q. You say that was about thirty yards away? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You. say the horses were going up to the crossing? A. Yes, sir, they were going upon the crossing.
“Q. The horses were going upon the.crossing when you looked up and saw a train? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. The train at that time was at this little trestle, or bridge, about here (indicating on photograph), about thirty yards south? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. South of the crossing? A.

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

Related

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Toeneboehn v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
298 S.W. 795 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Owens v. St. Louis, Southwestern Railway Co.
174 S.W. 116 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
Jackson v. Southwest Missouri Railroad
156 S.W. 1005 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Davidson v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
148 S.W. 406 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Bradley v. Goff
147 S.W. 1012 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Flack v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
145 S.W. 110 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Pugsley v. Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Co.
141 S.W. 923 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Woodward v. Wabash Railroad
133 S.W. 677 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Smtth v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
129 S.W. 719 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Gumm v. Kansas City Belt Railway Co.
125 S.W. 796 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Dunwoody v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
118 S.W. 503 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Canepa v. Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railway Co.
107 S.W. 1197 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Dunham v. Wabash Railroad
105 S.W. 21 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
103 S.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Porter v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
97 S.W. 880 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.W. 386, 196 Mo. 466, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 220, 196 Mo. 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanguinette-v-mississippi-river-bonne-terre-railway-co-mo-1906.