Richmond v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) Defendant, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, was not guilty of any negligence. (a) Defendant’s engineer approached the crossing in question in the usual and customary manner and with his engine under perfect control. Kleiber v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 240. (b) Negligence consists of failure to discharge a duty which one person owes to another.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) Defendant, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, was not guilty of any negligence. (a) Defendant’s engineer approached the crossing in question in the usual and customary manner and with his engine under perfect control. Kleiber v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 240. (b) Negligence consists of failure to discharge a duty which one person owes to another. Henry v. Railroad, 76 l. c. 295. (2) In this case plaintiff was occupying a position where he ought not to have been, and where defendant’s employees had no reason to anticipate he…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
Plaintiff brought suit against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company and the Kansas City Belt Railway Company for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. He dismissed the Belt Railway Company from the action during the trial and recovered judgment against the appealing defendant in the sum of two thousand dollars.
The main contention of defendant is that the court should have directed a verdict in its favor. Under the terms of a written contract, plaintiff delivered two cars of cattle to the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bindbeutal v. Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Carr v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
3Cited by1 opinion
- O'Connell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910