Millar v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. O’Neill Ryan, Judge. (1) Appellant’s demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained at the close of the whole case. Bartley v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 124; Williams v. Railroad, 78 S. W. 45. The negligence charged consists of the doing of two- distinct and separate things, namely, the sudden start without warning, and the stop within a few feet with a sudden jerk and shock, whereby deceased was caused to fall and be thrown.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. O’Neill Ryan, Judge. (1) Appellant’s demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained at the close of the whole case. Bartley v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 124; Williams v. Railroad, 78 S. W. 45. The negligence charged consists of the doing of two- distinct and separate things, namely, the sudden start without warning, and the stop within a few feet with a sudden jerk and shock, whereby deceased was caused to fall and be thrown. Before respondent can recover on this allegation, which is the only assignment of negligence, it devolved upon her to prove…
1Opinion of the CourtGrates, J.
Plaintiff / Ada J. B. Millar, by her action in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, sued both the St. Louis Transit Company and the United Railways Company, for the negligent killing of her husband, William J. L. Millar. By the petition, both defendants are charged as being “corporations duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the law of the State of Missouri as common carriers of passengers for hire, and át said times and as such, owned, used and operated the railway line and cars hereinafter mentioned for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire from point to point in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gilkeson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Monroe v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Cooke v. Springfield Traction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910