147 Mo. 140 | Mo. | 1898
— I. It is certain that these parties have had a day in court. There have been two verdicts before different judges, and two appeals have been taken, upon which five arguments have been heard. The opinion on the first appeal is found in 122 Mo. 533, and argument has been made as to the effect which is now to be given to it. Counsel for appellant say in their last brief, “The rule to be gathered from the decisions of this court on this question seems to us to be substantially this: That where the rulings on the first appeal are followed at the second trial, this court will not consider itself bound by such rulings, _ unless a contrary ruling on the second appeal would prejudice the rights of the party following the first decision.” They also urge, as another reason for their position, that “no directions were given in remanding the cause,” such as are given in equity cases, where the court passes upon the evidence, and in other cases where the facts, or at least a part of them are admitted.
It is true that no statute regulates this subject; that this court is not bound to respect its opinion given upon a first appeal when others are taken, yet I do not think that its decisions sustain the position of counsel.
Judge Black, speaking for the court, says, in Keith v. Keith, 97 Mo. 231: “The general rule is, that, where a case has been decided by this' court and again comes here by appeal or writ of error, only such questions will be noticed as were not determined on the former appeal. . . . These cases show that exceptions have been made to the general rule. The present case, however, comes within the general rule, for the question here decided was not considered on the former appeal.”
Judge Macfarlane, in Gwin v. Waggoner, 116 Mo. 151, says: “There can be no doubt of the correctness of the general proposition that, ‘when a case has been decided in this court, and again comes here on appeal or writ of error, only such questions will be noticed as were not determined on the previous decision; whatever was passed upon will be deemed res adjudicata and no longer open to dispute or further controversy.’ Overall v. Ellis, 38 Mo. 209. For there would be no end to a suit if every litigant could, through repeated appeals, compel a court to listen to criticisms on its opinions or speculate on chance for changes in its members. . . . Notwithstanding the doubt that must arise from the apparent inconsistencies in these decisions as to the circumstances under which exceptions and qualifications will be made, we think it can be safely said, without going outside any of the cases, that in order that a decision may operate as an estoppel on a subsequent appeal of the same case, the question must have been fairly presented to tho court as necessary to a decision in the case and directly considered and decided. Parties should not be concluded upon questions that are decided by mere implication arising from the general disposition of the case or those which were merely collateral to the matter actually considered.”
I will notice two cases which this court held to be exceptions to the general rule. Hamilton v. Marks, 63 Mo. involved the law of negotiable paper, and Judge Wagner said (p. 172) : “But, in view of the fact that subsequent decisions of this court, though not noticing or professing to overrule the decision in this case, are, in my opinion, inconsistent with it, and considering the great importance of having some settled and stable rule in reference to a question which so vitally concerns the business transactions of the whole community, it is deemed admissible to depart from the usual practice and consider the question again.”
Also the case of Wilson v. Beckwith, 140 Mo., where Judge Gantt says (p. 369) : “We are urged to reconsider and overrule the opinion announced on the former appeal in this case. In view of the gravity of the question involved and the consequences that must follow our adherence .to the ruling therein made, we have thought it proper to examine again the reasoning upon which that decision is based. In so doing we inaugurate no new practice in this court. In the recent case of Bird v. Sellers, 122 Mo. 32, the title to certain real estate was in dispute and the revenue law of the State was under consideration, and it appeared that the same
The rule from these decisions, it seems to me, can be stated in this way: If neither the evidence nor the insfcractions have been materially changed upon a retrial, then the opinion of this court is the law of the case upon another appeal as to all points considered and actually decided, where they have been fairly presented — no mistake having been made in regard to the record in the case — and where no decision of this court has been overruled inadvertently.
When a case like this is reversed and remanded, it is in effect a direction to the court to retry it according to the law as declared in the opinion, and to decline to do so, would at least subject the trial court to criticism.
Instruction number 1 was given at each trial and there was no material change in the evidence upon the question of defendant’s negligence, hence under this rule, the opinion on this subject is the rule of the case.
II. Plaintiff lived upon a farm about five miles from Eich Hill. She left home about 8 o’clock a. m., and was hurt about an hour afterward at a point where the tracks of defendant crossed a county road — one of the principal roads leading into said place. The day was clear, her team was gentle and the crossing was well known to her. These tracks cross the road at a right angle, or nearly so, running east and west. There were two switch tracks which' came together at the crosing. The switch tracks were south of the main track, and it was twenty-five feet from the south line of the main track to the switch track. At the time plaintiff was hurt, she was going north. West of the crossing, and standing along one of the switch tracks sixty-four feet, was a coal platform seven feet high. The east end of the platform was one hundred and nine feet from the middle of the road. .Twenty-five and one half feet west of the platform and to the south of it, wras an engine house into which ran one of these switch tracks; its front was toward the crossing, and it had a depth east and west of sixty-three and four-tenths feet. This crossing was near Eich Hill and the defendant had yards upon both sides of if.
The conductor says that after he left the Eich Hill depot, he took some empty cars, so that when he passed the Missouri Pacific crossing — which was from a quarter to a half of a mile west of the engine house — his train was as follows: Eirst the engine and caboose, next three coal cars and then the five box ears. It was down grade from this point to the end of the yards. Just after, to use his language, leaving this Missouri Pacific crossing he cut off the five box cars and got upon the forward car. He was alone;
The conductor says that when he first saw plaintiff the brakes Avere not set and that he began to set them within one hundred feet from the crossing, and in regard to the effect of setting .these brakes, he says: “I suppose it did check
What is the law upon these facts? The court, speaking upon this subject in Railroad v. Converse, 139 U. S. 472, said: “While those using a public highway are under a duty to keep out of the way of railroad ears crossing it, and to exercise to that end such care as the circumstances make necessary, the railroad company, in moving cars upon its road, is bound to observe like care towards those who, while traveling upon such highways, whether on foot or in vehicles, are obliged to pass over its tracks. The right of a railroad company to the use of its tracks for the movement of engines and cars is no greater in the eye of the law -than the right of an individual to travel over a highway extending across such tracks. The former is granted, subject to the condition, necessarily implied, that it shall be so used as not unreasonably to interfere with or abridge the latter. The obligation to use one’s property in such a manner as not to injure that of others rests equally upon corporations and individuals.” [Railroad v. Steele’s Administratrix, 54 U. S. App. 550.]
In Hanlon v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 389, Judge Macfarlane says: “The rule, and the qualification of it, require
Judge Black says in Stepp v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 235: “Railroad companies can not operate their roads, and thereby subserve the public interest, without crossing streets and public highways, and positive law gives them a right so to do, but they are required to give the statutory signal. It is negligence not to give the signal. The safety of human lives and of property, on and off the trains, demands the observance of these requirements as well as reasonable precautions in approaching these crossings. On the other hand, the public have a right also to use these highways at such crossings. It is also the duty of a traveler on the public road to use all reasonable care and caution to avoid injury. He has a right to believe these signals will be given, and on the other hand the company has the right to act upon the supposition that he will take all reasonable care to hear them, and give hoed to their warning. It has been repeatedly held by this court that it is the duty of one crossing a railroad track to look and listen for an approaching train, and thus get all the information his eyes and ears will afford him, and if he fails to do this and thereby contributes to the injury, he must suffer the consequences, even though the company may have
Judge Norton says in Petty v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 318: “But assuming that he could, at the distance of two hundred yards west of the crossing, have heard the rumbling noise of a train, and that in fact he did hear it, it does not follow that he was guilty of negligence in proceeding on his way, and for these reasons: The rumbling of the train would simply have imparted to him the knowledge of the fact that a train was running somewhere on the track, not whether it was approaching or going away from the crossing. But conceding that he heard the noise of the train, and that as a prudent man he was bound to know that it was approaching, still it would not be, as a matter of law, negligence for him to proceed on his way, inasmuch as, under such circumstances as are disclosed by the evidence in this case, the deceased might well have concluded that the approaching train was more than eighty rods from the crossing, and that it was safe for him to proceed on his way, relying upon the presumption that the defendant would not disobey the law, in failing to notify him of its approach by ringing its bell or sounding its whistle when it came within a quarter of a mile of the crossing, to which notice he was by law entitled, and which it was the duty of defendant to give. [Johnson v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 546.] The whistle was neither sounded nor the bell rung till the train was within forty-two rods of the crossing, and when the bell was rung or whistle sounded at that distance, the train could not, according to the evidence, pass by deceased from the point where he turned south with his team. So that when he heard the bell rung, or the whistle sounded, as he must have done, he had a right to believe that it was sounded at the distance of eighty rods instead of forty rods, and might, as a prudent man,. have acted on the belief that he could pass with his team a distance of fifty feet over the crossing before the train ran
In Gurley v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 227, Judge Gantt says that a railroad owes “a positive legal duty” to a traveler upon a public crossing.
In Railroad v. Barnett, 59 Pa. 264, it is said: “Nor is it any excuse or justification that the act occasioning the injury was in itself lawful or that it was done in the exercise of a lawful right, if the injury arose from the negligent manner in which it was done.”
It is clear from the dissenting opinion of Judge Sherwood, that Judge Black was mistaken when he defined that which was done to be a running or flying switch. If after the engine and caboose had crossed the public road, the coal oars had been cut off while in motion and their speed slackened, or that of the engine increased, so that the latter could pass a switch on the main track, in time for it to be thrown, thereby sending the coal cars by their own motion upon the switch track, a running or flying switch would have been made. But as the facts were stated in the majority opinion, it seems to me that the misnomer did no harm, as the elements of negligence in each case are the same. The supreme court of Illinois, in Railroad v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 350, says: “All know that a flying switch, passing on a track without an engine attached or a bell ringing or a whistle sounding, is and must from the very nature of things, be more perilous to life than a switch made with an engine attached, with the usual signals. The object of having a bell rung, or a whistle sounded at road crossings and places where there is danger of collisions, is wholly defeated by the use of this mode of switching, and when employed it necessarily implies negligence on the part of the company.” [See, also, O’Connor v. Railroad, 94 Mo. 150; French v. Railroad, 116 Mass. 537; Brown v. Railroad, 32 N. Y. 597; Railroad v. Converse.
It is true, as Judge Sherwood says, that most of these cases relate to city crossings. But certainly it can not be that the law has a greater regard for the man in the city than the one in the country. The principle is the same in each case. The law in each ease seeks the same object, viz., to give the traveler notice of and to protect him from the passing train. It seeks in each ease to compel the railroad to give him an effective warning, for a warning is of no use if it does not warn the one for whom it is intended. It is true that in a city it is more difficult to give that warning, by reason of the many tracks and trains passing on the same in opposite directions, with bells on several engines ringing at the same time, and on account of various obstructions as well as smoke, dust and a variety of noises, hence greater care must be taken by a railroad in a city than in a country. In Railroad v. Converse, supra, 474, the court said: “The country road upon which the plaintiff was traveling was not, it is true, much used by the general public. But that fact only affects the degree of care the defendant was bound to observe, and does not establish a right to have its cars approach the crossing, where the plaintiff was hurt, and over which the public were entitled to pass, as if there was no highway there at all.”
When defendant crossed the road it was operating “a daugerous agency,” but it was a legal one and no one could complain so long as it was used so “as not unnecessarily to interfere or abridge the rights of the traveler upon the roád.” To save trouble, however, the defendant let these five cars come down across this road by their own momentum, with no engine at either end, so that no bell could be rung or whistle
In the case of Railroad v. Matthews, 7 Vroom, in which all eleven of the judges agreed, the opinion seems to me a conservative one, the court says (p. 53é) : “Under usual circumstances in the open country, they can run as many trains and at as great a rate of speed, as are consistent with the safety of their passengers. They are not called on to keep flagmen under ordinary circumstances, at cross roads, nor to give any other notice of the approach of their trains than those signals that are prescribed by statute. . . . But while I thus say that these additional burthens can not be imposed by the court upon these companies, I also say at the same time and with quite as much emphasis, that the companies may, by their own conduct, impose such burthens *on themselves. If one of them choose to build its track in such a mode as to unnecessarily make the use of a public road which it crosses, greatly dangerous, I think such company, by its own action, must be held to have assumed the obligation of compensating the public for the increased danger, by the use of additional safeguards. The reasonable
If a locomotive were to cross a road with no bell or whistle, but with a man in front yelling and whistling, all would declare it to be a puny warning compared with the statutory one; “a desperate makeshift in such a dangerous emergency,” to use the language of Ward v. Railroad, supra. When a bell is rung or whistle sounded all know at once that it is a warning; there can be no mistake. This can not be said of the yelling and whistling of a man. In Ernst v. Railroad, 85 N. Y. 32, the court said: “So, also, the signals and hallooing were understood differently by the bystanders. One thought they meant to keep off; another to come on the boat; while others did not understand their meaning at all. The whole transaction must have been embraced within a few seconds of time, and the. hallooing and gesticulations of the bystanders, even if observed by the deceased, were well calculated to confuse him.” So here the yelling and whistling to have been a warning must not only have been heard by plaintiff, but she must also have known from whom they came. In Welsch v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 454, the defendant took shelter under the statute, claiming it did its whole duty by complying with it, and the court agreed
What the defendant should have done under the circumstances is not for me to say. [Burger v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 246.] Beyond a doubt the warning given was far inferior to the statutory one. Doing as it did, it could not give that one, yet it should have done something equally as effective to protect the travelers at the crossing; not to do so is negligence. Of course if the traveler had heard the whistling and yelling, and had known what it meant in time to have kept out of the way, he could not recover even if it might have been done by a stranger.
III. The serious question to me is that of contributory negligence. This is a matter of defense, unless it appears from the evidence of the plaintiff. [Hudson v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 13.]
There was some new evidence on the retrial upon this subject. On account of my respect for the learned counsel of appellant who have done a world of work in this case, I will review the evidence, though I am conscious that my opinion is already too long.
There are six witnesses besides the plaintiff who testify about the accident. The evidence of plaintiff is far from satisfactory and it can not be reconciled. It may be that the part she took.in this collision was not an aid to her memory. “I saw the engine and ear pass, and of course I drove across the road.” “Then of course I started on to go across.” “Oh, the train was gone. Then I started on, I knew no more.” On examination in chief she says she did stop “to see if anything was coming. I could not see anything, nor hear anything.” She says she does not remember how far
On the part of the defense, besides the conductor, the testimony by those who saw the accident, was as follows:
One who was four hundred and fifty feet away heard the hallooing, supposed it was made by the conductor, saw him on the cars, which he first saw by the engine house; plaintiff was then from eighty to one hundred feet from the track; that just before she got to the crossing she slapped the horses with the lines. He didn’t see her stop, her team was walking, and as she was coming to the crossing he thinks she was looking toward the engine which had gone by; that her head was turned in that direction. A witness who was to the north of the track heard the hallooing by the conductor, saw the plaintiff go on the track, saw her look toward the box car; she slapped her horses and looked to her as if she wished to commit suicide; she did not see the plaintiff stop. The conductor says that when he got the second brake set plaintiff was crossing. “I didn’t see her look either one side or the other until her horses commenced to cross the first track.......She looked toward me and saw the cars and commenced slapping the horses with the lines, like that.” He did not see her stop. Another witness some distance away saw plaintiff when she was hurt; saw her drive
Plaintiff also introduced evidence tending to show that there was coal upon the platform which came above it, and that there were box and coal cars standing on the switch tracks near the engine house. There was a great variety of •evidence by many witnesses tending to show that from various points one could see, and that one could not see, cars .approaching the track from the west.
Now what could the jury have fairly found from this evidence conflicting as it is? The evidence tended to show that plaintiff heard the engine coming and stopped about one hundred feet from the crossing until it passed; that from that point to the crossing her line of vision to the west was, to some extent to say the least, obstructed; that she slowly drove to the crossing, looking to the east at. the engine which had passed, and which had the ears attached in such a way as to lead one to believe that it might leave a part of them and come back soon; that when she got upon the crossing, for the first time she saw the box cars bearing down on her; that she became excited and in her excitement did the wrong thing; that she ought to have stood.still on the track, or between the tracks where she was; that instead of doing this, she hit her horses and got in front of the moving cars .and was hurt.
It seems plain to me that the well known rule of “stop, look and listen” which must govern those who approach railroad crossings in vehicles, was not laid down for such a •case as this, and that it does not in any way impair that rule by holding this case to be an exception.
This court in Jennings v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 276, has said, while considering this rule: “Such a general rule of' conduct must have grown out of experiences and observations that were common and ordinary; hence the rule, like most others, is not of universal application, but has exceptions under exceptional circumstances. As in Petty v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 308, the whistle was sounded forty, instead of eighty, rods from a crossing, it was held not negligent in law for one to proceed over the track, if he could have done-so safely, had the train been in fact eighty rods away. In Bluedorn v. Railroad, 103 Mo. 449, the court says: ‘Where as here, there is flagrant violation of a law or municipal regulation, resulting in an injury, contributory negligence-should be clearly made out, before the court relieves the defendant from liability on that ground.’ [See, also, Kellny v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 76.]”
IV. If plaintiff was thrown off her guard by the neglect of defendant or was lulled thereby into a sense of secu
It seems to me that the authorities are all one way on this subject. [Seigrist v. Arnot, 86 Mo. 200; Keim v. Union R’y & T. Co., 90 Mo. 322; Donohue v. Railroad, 91 Mo. 364; Dickson v. Railroad, 124 Mo. 140; McPeak v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 642; Robinson v. Railroad, 48 Cal. 421; Buel v. Railroad, 31 N. Y. 318; Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 191; Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 Mass. 506; Railroad v. Ware, 84 Ky. 267.]
The jury were instructed that the conduct of plaintiff must have been that of an ordinarily prudent person under such circumstances. Judge Gantt., speaking of this rule in Stanley v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 619, says: “This rule has been steadily maintained in this court since that decision. It is one that enables each jury in each ■ recurring case, to ■say, after a careful survey of all the facts, whether a party has used that care that an ordinarily prudent person would have used under similar circumstances. It is one that is ■susceptible of practical application. It furnishes the measure required by the law, and leaves to the triers of the fact the determination of the facts and fixing the liability under
V. Defendant asked twenty-nine instructions. They were all drawn with great care and skill, born of great experience in this kind of cases; counsel can hardly expect me to discuss each one of them. It would not comfort them, and certainly it would not benefit the profession.
“And if the instructions taken as a whole presented the-issues fairly and were not misleading and were not calculated to mislead the jury, it was all that was necessary.” [Henry v. Railroad, 113 Mo. 536.]
Counsel complain because number 1, given at the'instance of the court, told the jury that they might “consider what influence or effect, if any, the passing of the engine and attached part of the train in question, as the same passed, would have upon the mind and conduct of a prudent person placed as she then was.”
They say it was a comment on the evidence. It may be-true, as was said by Judge Gantt in Spillane v. Railroad, 135 Mo. 424, that “the instruction is by no means a model and is not to be followed as a precedent,” yet, in my opinion it could have done defendant no harm. There is no doubt but that it was proper for them to consider this. Moreover-, the court does not comment on it; it did not say what effect' they should give to it, only that they might consider what, etc., if any, etc. [Sherwood v. Railroad, 132 Mo. 344.]
YI. Counsel have argued with great earnestness- another point, and for fear it may be due to them to mention it in this opinion, I give it in their words: “That, whether Mrs. Baker stopped or looked or listened or whether she did not do so, the testimony shows beyond any question that, if
Her evidence does not show to me that she was a long-way off when the engine passed. Her evidence on this point is so vague and contradictory that no one can tell from it where she was when the engine passed. It is so thin on this point that it will not bear an instruction. [Powell v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 84.] To ascertain the fact I must depend upon the evidence upon both sides and from that evidence it appears to me she was not more than one hundred feet from the track when the engine passed and the evidence convinces me that it was but a short period of time between the passing of the engine and the box cars.
Counsel do not admit that plaintiff did actually stop just before she went upon the tracks. Their answer says she did not stop at all, and the evidence clearly shows that she did not stop just before she attempted to cross, but they claim that inasmuch as she contradicted herself on this point, and swore to what was not true, that nevertheless this tends to show that she was not confused when she went upon the tracks. In other words, that she must fail to recover on account of the neglect of defendant, because she has made this mistake in her testimony.
I thinl?; no weight should be given to this false testimony for any purpose whatsoever. The most that can be said is that her testifying in this way, may possibly be due to her confusion, which existed at the time of the accident.
In my opinion the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
