Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Timmerman v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis

Timmerman v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis

241 S.W.2d 477, 362 Mo. 280, 1951 Mo. LEXIS 655
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJuly 9, 1951
Docket41944
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 241 S.W.2d 477 (Timmerman v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis) 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
Timmerman v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis, 241 S.W.2d 477, 362 Mo. 280, 1951 Mo. LEXIS 655 (Mo. 1951).

Opinion

*288 ELLISON, J.

The defendant-appellant Terminal Railroad Association appeals from a judgment for $35,000 recovered against it by the plaintiff-respondent Timmerman under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, for personal injuries sustained by him while in the service of that railroad as a switchman. For the purpose of throwing a switch he had just alighted from the front footboard of a Terminal switch engine into the eight foot space between the track on which it was moving and a parallel track, when a rapidly moving Wabash diesel locomotive on the latter track struck him and caused the injuries for which he sued. The grounds of negligence assigned were that: (1) the space between the two tracks was insufficient to afford a reasonably safe place to work; (2) the appellant negligently failed to warn respondent of the approach, proximity and movement of the Wabash locomotive; (3) and negligently failed to stop its own locomotive before appellant was injured.

Appellant makes seven assignments of error here: (1) that respondent failed to make a submissible case for the jury; (2) that respondent’s charge of appellant’s failure to furnish him a safe place to work, based on the close proximity of the two railroad tracks, is unfounded in law and fact; (3) that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s challenges to the competency of two veniremen; (4) respondent’s instruction No. 1 was erroneous in three respects; (5) the trial court erred in refusing to give appellant’s instructions

*289

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

Related

Ray v. Gream
860 S.W.2d 325 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1993)
Duren v. Kunkel
814 S.W.2d 935 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1991)
Johnson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
374 S.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1963)
Marquardt v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
358 S.W.2d 49 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1962)
Martin v. Kansas City
340 S.W.2d 645 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1960)
State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Craig
329 S.W.2d 804 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1959)
Beard v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
323 S.W.2d 732 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1959)
Lamont v. Thompson
303 S.W.2d 589 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1957)
Cleghorn v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St. Louis
289 S.W.2d 13 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1956)
Houfburg v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine
283 S.W.2d 539 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1955)
Evinger v. Thompson
265 S.W.2d 726 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1954)
Peterson v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
259 S.W.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1953)
Curtis v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
253 S.W.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)
Cassano v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
247 S.W.2d 786 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 S.W.2d 477, 362 Mo. 280, 1951 Mo. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timmerman-v-terminal-rr-assn-of-st-louis-mo-1951.