Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/98-s-w-509-619360366
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:12:37+00:00

Document:
98 S.W. 509 (Mo. 1906), Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
Attorney: Scarritt, Griffith & Jones for appellants. P. H. Cullen, W. H. Logan and Walter Burch for respondent.
Appeal from Callaway Circuit Court. -- Hon. Alex. H. Waller, Judge.
Affirmed as to defendants railway company and Haines; reversed as to defendant Wiseman.
Scarritt, Griffith & Jones for appellants.
(1) As no delinquency of the company itself is charged to have concurred with the delinquencies of its agents, there was no joint liability, and this cause was removable by the railway company. Shafer v. Brick Co., 128 F. 97; Helms v. Railroad, 120 F. 389; Hukill v. Railroad, 72 F. 754; Kelly v. Railroad, 122 F. 286; Henry v. Railroad, 132 F. 715; Steinhauser v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 541. (2) The court erred to the great prejudice of defendants in permitting a number of witnesses to testify, over the objection of the defendants, as to the rate of speed at which the train in question was running prior to the collision. Petty v. Railroad, 179 Mo. 666; Campbell v. Railroad, 175 Mo. 161; Helm v. Railroad, 185 Mo. 122. (3) Plaintiff's instruction on the measure of damages is fatally defective. There was no evidence whatever before the jury as a basis upon which they could have computed or determined plaintiff's earning capacity. The jury were left to guess, or to follow a mere whim in this regard. Dunn v. Railroad, 21 Mo.App. 205; Matthews v. Railroad, 26 Mo.App. 86; O'Brien v. Loomis, 43 Mo.App. 40. (4) The demurrers to plaintiff's evidence and the peremptory instructions on behalf of all the defendants at the end of all the evidence should have been given by the trial court, because it clearly appears from the evidence that plaintiff was herself guilty of negligence which contributed to cause her injuries. A person approaching a railroad crossing may not escape the consequences of his or her failure to look and listen because another may have hold of the lines, when the one not driving has as good or better opportunity than the driver to see or hear an approaching train. Aurelius v. Railroad, 19 Ind.App. 584; Miller v. Railroad, 128 Ind. 97; Brickell v. Railroad, 120 N.Y. 290; Bush v. Railroad, 62 Kan. 709; Railroad v. McLeod, 78 Miss. 334.
P. H. Cullen, W. H. Logan and Walter Burch for respondent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.