Sanitary Dairy Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Selden P. Spencer, Judge. STATEMENT. Defendant has a double street railway track on Easton avenue running east and west in the city of St. Louis. Easton avenue is crossed at right angles by Euclid avenue running north and south. On December 6, 1900, plaintiff’s teamster was driving plaintiff’s three-horse wagon'south on Euclid avenue, the driver being seated on the wagon.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Selden P. Spencer, Judge. STATEMENT. Defendant has a double street railway track on Easton avenue running east and west in the city of St. Louis. Easton avenue is crossed at right angles by Euclid avenue running north and south. On December 6, 1900, plaintiff’s teamster was driving plaintiff’s three-horse wagon'south on Euclid avenue, the driver being seated on the wagon. When he reached Easton avenue he turned the lead horse in a southeasterly direction for the purpose of crossing to the south side of Easton avenue and then proceeding east…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
It is the law here and elsewhere that it was the duty of plaintiff’s driver before he attempted to drive across Easton avenue to look and listen according to his opportunity for an approaching car on the south track and that this duty was continuing until he passed the track. Hayden v. Railroad, 124 Mo. 566; Kelsay v. Railroad, 129 Mo. loc. cit. 372. And if the car on the northwest corner obstructed his view when he first got on the street, after passing that obstruction it was his duty then to look for an approaching car before driving on the south track. Lien v. Railroad, 79 Mo. App. (K.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hayden v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nephler v. WoodwardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Atkinson v. American School of OsteopathySupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Fechley v. Springfield Traction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906