Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/90-s-w-354-619351542
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:47:10+00:00

Document:
Attorney: Glendy B. Arnold for appellant; Boyle, Priest & Lehmann and George W. Easley of counsel. Scullin & Chopin and Daniel Dillon for respondent.
Judge Panel: MARSHALL, J. Brace, P. J., concurs; Valliant and Lamm, JJ., concur in paragraphs 1 and 2, and in the result.
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. H. D. Wood, Judge.
Glendy B. Arnold for appellant; Boyle, Priest & Lehmann and George W. Easley of counsel.
(1) The court erred in overruling defendant's challenges to jurors Hartman and Bensberg. Billmyer v. Railroad, 108 Mo.App. 6; People v. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347; Ins Co. v. Schueller, 60 Ill. 465; McLaran v. Birdsong, 24 Ga. 365; Doherty v. Lord, 28 N.Y.S. 720; Commonwealth v. Brown, 9 Am. St. Rep. note, p. 744; Const., art. 2, sec. 28. (2) The court erred in refusing to give to the jury defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer, offered at the close of plaintiff's evidence and renewed at the close of the whole case. McGauley v. Railroad, 179 Mo. 583; Reno v. Railroad, 180 Mo. 469; Roenfeldt v. Railroad, 18 Mo. 534; Zurfluh v. Railroad, 46 Mo.App. 636. (3) Instruction 2 given for plaintiff is erroneous. There is no reliable evidence in the record that the car was being run at a negligent speed. The witnesses testifying in support of this charge showed no qualification whatever to give such evidence. Petty v. Railroad, 179 Mo. 666; Mathieson v. Railroad, 92 N.W. 639; Hoppe v. Railroad, 161 Wis. 357. (4) The court erred in giving instruction 3. This instruction was error because it required the motorman to keep constant and vigilant watch on the track ahead. This is not the law. The motorman is required to use ordinary care only in watching for persons on or approaching the track. (5) Instruction 6 should not have been given. The humanitarian rule is not applicable to the facts in this case. McGauley v. Railroad, supra; Holwerson v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 216. (6) Defendant's refused instruction 6 should have been given, as follows: "If the injury and death of deceased was due to or caused by the mutual or joint negligence of deceased and defendant's motorman, then the plaintiff cannot recover." Boyd v. Railroad, supra; Watson v. Railroad, supra; McManamee v. Railroad, 135 Mo. 440; Kries v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 321; Peterson v. Railroad, 156 Mo. 552; Holwerson v. Railroad, supra; McCarty v. Rood Hotel Co., 144 Mo. 402; Kelney v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 67; Tanner v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 497; Conrad Grocer Co. v. Railroad, 89 Mo.App. 534; Graham v. Railroad (N.H.), 55 L.R.A. 426, and note.
Scullin & Chopin and Daniel Dillon for respondent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.