Tanner v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

61 S.W. 826, 161 Mo. 497, 1901 Mo. LEXIS 126
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 29, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 61 S.W. 826 (Tanner v. Missouri Pacific Railroad) 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
Tanner v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 61 S.W. 826, 161 Mo. 497, 1901 Mo. LEXIS 126 (Mo. 1901).

Opinion

BRACE, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the circuit court of Pettis county in favor of the plaintiff for' the sum of seven thousand dollars, for personal injuries, which, it is alleged in the petition, was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in running its train at a rate of speed in excess of that allowed by city ordinance and without ringing its bell. The answer was a general denial, and a plea of con-[503]*503tributary negligence. At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant demurred thereto, and at the close of all the evidence renewed its demurrer, and now insists that the trial court committed error in not sustaining the demurrer. This contention makes it necessary to determine the undisputed facts in the case, and if upon them, it is well grounded, the necessity of considering the other errors assigned is obviated.

The accident occurred on the second day of March, 1897, between one and two o’clock a. m. on the grounds óf the defendant in front of its depot in the city of Sedalia. The depot fronts south, with a wooden platform extending south to the tracks. Along and in front of the platform and on a level with it, are located five tracks running east ánd west, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, from the platform, which extends across and between two or three of the tracks. South of the tracks and in front of the depot, Osage street, sixty feet wide, running north and south, abuts the depot grounds, and-forms one of the principal approaches to the station, to reach which all five of these tracks must be crossed. On the northwest corner of Osage street, fronting the depot grounds and tracks, is the Pacific Lunch Room. On the night in question the plaintiff was in the employ of the City Hotel as night clerk, and discharging the duties of porter for that hotel. Passenger train number nine coming from the east on track number one was due at 1:43 a. m. Passenger train number 10, coming from the west on track number two, was due at 1:50 a. m. The track is straight and level and the headlight of a coming engine on it, can be seen a half mile from the place of the accident. The bulletin board showed these trains on time. In fact, number nine came in about five minutes late, and number ten on time. The plaintiff, in the line of his employment, was in the Pacific Lunch Room awaiting the arrival of these trains. The story of his injury is told by him in his evidence as follows:

[504]*504 In Chief.

Q. You may state what you did after you got there, to the lunch room, how long you stayed there and how you came to go there, if you did, to meet number nine? A. I went over and went in the side door to the lunch room, where we generally stopped out of the rain or cold weather, and stop in there occasionally when the train is not in sight or hear it coming; we drop inside there at the restaurant, and step in there and talk a few minutes until the train comes, and we was all standing in there talking. Some one said the train was coming—

Q. Had there been anything said in there about the bulletins of the two trains before that? A. Well, it was reported, “Number nine on time.”

Q. How about number ten? A. Both on time; that was the report.

Q. Marked where, at the bulletin at the depot? A. Yes, sir; I didn’t go over myself, but it was reported there amongst the hack-drivers and the porters that number nine and ten was on time.

Q. Now go on in your own way ? A. And when number nine was coming in, we heard it coming in, we all went out; I say all, several went out; some went out the side door and some the back; I went out the back door, and it was raining; you have to go east a little bit to get on the sidewalk, the back door of the restaurant, and I went north—

Q. Did you go east when you stepped out of the back door of the restaurant ? A. Had to go east to get to the corner of the building, sidewalk.

Q. Then how did you go when you got to the comer of the building, to the sidewalk ? A. I went north.

Q. Where did you go, north ? A. I went north to the [505]*505platform between number one and two track, where number nine and ten runs in on.

Q. How long were you in there before number ni*-- 3 came in ? A. Why, I just got there, and number nine came in.

Q. Erom the east? A. From the east, by me.

Q. Go on, from that, and, by the way, when you went across this track that number ten finally came in on, state whether you looked or not, if you looked? A. Yes, sir, I looked west.

Q. Did you see anything that indicated a train coming ? A. No, sir; nothing but some switch lights up there. They don’t give no such light as an engine, you know.....

Q. Then you crossed on over this track that number ten finally caine in on, and got in between tracks number one and two? A. Yes, sir.

Q. On which side of number nine were you when number nine came in ? A. On the south side.

Q. How wide is that platform between tracks one and two? I don’t mean when the trains are in, but before they come in, how wide is the space between the rails,- give us your judgment A. I couldn’t say.

Q. You never measured it, but give us your judgment about it ? A. I judge, seven or eight feet there.

Q. When trains come in, I suppose the cars project over the rails to some extent; how wide would the space be when two trains were standing in there, do you think. A. I judge it would be four or five feet.

Q. Now, after number nine came in from the east you say you had your umbrella up ? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did you hold your umbrella ? A. Hp over my head, it was raining.

Q. What did you do after number nine came in ? I was standing there waiting for passengers to get off.

[506]*506Q. Had you moved up east some? A. I may have stepped up a few steps. The smoking car is about middle-ways where I was standing.

Q. What do you mean by that, the smoking car? A. That is the first coach.

Q. And you mean that you were standing about the middle of the smoking car ? A. Yes, sir; when the people were getting off.

Q. If we knew where that car stood we would be able to locate you; do you know where that car stood? A. I think it was partly across Osage. I was standing on the platform between Osage or on Osage.

Q. You think you were standing on that platform where Osage, if it went through, would have gone right where you were? A. Yes, sir.

Q. ITow long had you been over there before number ten came in ? A. I had been standing there I guess a’ minute and a half or two minutes. h

Q. 'What were you doing during that time ? A. Standing there looking for passengers to get off. ’■

Q. Were you on the track that number ten came in on, * do you think ? A. No, sir; I don’t think I was on the track.

Q. What happened to you then? A, The train ran into me. Number ten run into me and took my leg off.

Q. Hid you hear it before it struck you ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did it ring any bell, the engine on number ten ? A. No bell ringing.
Q. You never saw it before it struck you? A. No, sir.
Q.

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

Related

Drown v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
414 S.W.2d 813 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1967)
Willig v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
137 S.W.2d 430 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1940)
McKeown v. Northwestern Pacific Railroad
66 P.2d 1250 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Wm. H. Pollett v. D. R.G.W.R. Co. and B.P. Delong
25 P.2d 963 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
Dutcher v. Wabash Railroad
145 S.W. 63 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Haffey v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
135 S.W. 987 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Van Dyke v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
130 S.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
Murphy v. Wabash Railroad
128 S.W. 481 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
Brockschmidt v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad
103 S.W. 964 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Abbott v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Co.
121 Mo. App. 582 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Bectenwald v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
97 S.W. 557 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Sims v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.
92 S.W. 909 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Kohr v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
92 S.W. 1145 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Lang v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
115 Mo. App. 489 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Schmidt v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
90 S.W. 136 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
Sepetowski v. St. Louis Transit Co.
76 S.W. 693 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Moore v. Lindell Railway Co.
75 S.W. 672 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Zumault v. Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad
74 S.W. 1015 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Cogan v. Cass Avenue & Fair Grounds Railway Co.
73 S.W. 738 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Moore v. St. Louis Transit Co.
75 S.W. 699 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 S.W. 826, 161 Mo. 497, 1901 Mo. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-missouri-pacific-railroad-mo-1901.