TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hodges v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.

Hodges v. The St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Company

Hodges v. St. Louis, 71 Mo. 50 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1879
Judges
Hough
Citations
71 Mo. 50
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Railroad Crossing: failure to ring or whistle : negligence. A switch-crossing provided by a railroad company across its own ground for ingress to and egress from its depot, is not a “traveled public road ” within the meaning of section 38, of the railroad act> (Wag. Stat., 310). Failure of a train approaching such crossing to ring a bell or sound a whistle does not, therefore, constitute a violation of that section; but whether it may not constitute negligence on the part of the company depends upon the circumstances of the case, and is a question of fact for the jury. (Following Bauer v. K. P. By. Co., 69 Mo. 219.)
Summary
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. Ggo. W. Bunn, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hough

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hough, J.

This was an action to recover damages for injuries done to the plaintiff’s wagon by one of the defendant’s trains at a switch-crossing provided by the defendant across its own ground, for ingress to and egress from its depot near Missouri City, in Olay county. The plaintiff recovered judgment on the ground that it was the duty of the defendant’s servants to ring the bell or sound the whistle of the engine before reaching this crossing, and that they failed to do so. It has been recently decided by this court that a crossing like the one in question, is not a “ traveled public road or street,” within the meaning of section 88, of the railroad act, which requires a bell to be rung or a whistle sounded at a distance of eighty rods from such road or street. Bauer v. The Kansas Pacific Ry. Co., 69 Mo. 219 . As it was not the duty of the defendant’s servants, under the statute, to ring a bell or sound a whistle before passing the crossing in question, whether it was their duty to do either under the circumstances of the case, or in other words, whether they were guilty of negligence in failing to do either the one or the other, was a question of fact for the jury. The court declared, as a matter of law, that such failure constituted negligence, and in this committed error. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1885–1886: 11917–1918: 11919–1920: 118852026peak 1885 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Bauer v. Kan. Pac. Ry. Co., 69 Mo. 219 (1878) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list