Wilson v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St.- Louis City Cirep.it Court. — Hon. O’Neill By an, Judge. (1) ' The court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence. Failure to look and listen for the approach of a car upon stepping upon railway tracks is such negligence as will bar a recovery upon the part of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St.- Louis City Cirep.it Court. — Hon. O’Neill By an, Judge. (1) ' The court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence. Failure to look and listen for the approach of a car upon stepping upon railway tracks is such negligence as will bar a recovery upon the part of plaintiff. When the physical facts show that if deceased had looked he would have seen the approaching car that injured him, it will be presumed that he.either did not look, or, if he did look, he did not heed what he heard and saw. Boring v. Railroad, 194 Mo. 541; Schmidt v. Railroad, 191 Mo.…
1Opinion of the Court
YALL1ANT, O. J.
Plaintiff’s husband was struck and killed by a street car of defendant and this suit is brought under section 2864, Revised Statutes 1899, to recover the penalty in that statute prescribed. The acts of negligence charged in the petition are, running at high and reckless speed without keeping a vigilant watch for persons on foot moving towards or on the track, without using care to stop or control the movements of the car, without giving warning by bell or otherwise of its approach.
The petition also pleads the Vigilant Watch Ordinance and charges that it was violated, and an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schloemer v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907