Slater v. A.T. S.F. Ry. Co.

9 Citing cases

  1. Larson v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

    364 Mo. 344 (Mo. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    The evidence in this case showed that the defendant was negligent in failing to use proper care to equip car #2055 with a safe catcher device, in failing to properly inspect it, and in failing to replace or repair it after having actual notice of its defect. 39 U.S.C.A., Chap. 15, Sec. 573/8; Slater v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. App. 824, 24 S.W.2d 660; Willis v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 352 Mo. 490, 178 S.W.2d 341; Stoutimore v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 338 Mo. 463, 92 S.W.2d 658; Markley v. K.C. So. Ry. Co., 338 Mo. 436, 90 S.W.2d 409; Stremming v. Holekamp Lbr. Co., 238 S.W.2d 31; Carter v. Wash. O.D. Ry. Co., 122 Va. 458, 95 S.E. 464;

  2. Huggins v. United States

    302 F. Supp. 114 (W.D. Mo. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    When the safety measure is obviously to be instituted as a prerequisite to protecting workers from the machinery, or as a device which would effectively serve as a guard where one is required by law, the factory act requires it. See Slater v. A.T. S.F. Railway Company, 91 Kan. 226, 137 P. 943, L.R.A. 1916F, 949. The long block or the forward pusher may properly be considered in this context as the equivalent of an "effective guard" on the planer.

  3. Means v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    550 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. 1977)   Cited 86 times

    The mere size of the verdict does not in and of itself establish that it was the result of bias or passion and prejudice without showing some other error committed during the trial. Slater v. Atchison, T. S. F. Ry., 224 Mo.App. 824, 24 S.W.2d 660, 666 (1930); Skadal v. Brown, supra, 351 S.W.2d at 690; Friend v. Gem International, Inc., 476 S.W.2d 134, 140 (Mo.App. 1971). Appellant contends that the injection of the false issue of insurance so biased the minds of the jurors that the verdict was "grossly excessive" and, hence, the verdict must be vitiated in its entirely.

  4. Skadal v. Brown

    351 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. 1961)   Cited 52 times
    Holding a verdict was internally consistent when the fact-finder found for plaintiff on a claim for personal injuries but for the defendant on the plaintiff's claim for property damage arising out of the same accident where plaintiff failed to prove an essential element – that he sustained pecuniary losses

    On the question whether the verdict was so excessive as to indicate bias and prejudice, vitiating the entire verdict and thereby entitling defendant to a new trial, this Court has consistently ruled that the mere size of a verdict — the fact that it may be excessive — does not in and of itself establish that it was the result of bias or passion and prejudice, O'Brien v. Louisville Nashville R. Co., 360 Mo. 229, 227 S.W.2d 690, 693, 694; Abernathy v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., Mo.Sup., 237 S.W.2d 161; Keely v. Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Mo.Sup., 278 S.W.2d 765, without showing some other error committed in the trial. Slater v. Atchison, T. S. F. Ry. Co., 224 Mo.App. 824, 24 S.W.2d 660, 666. Defendant relies on two occurrences to justify a finding of misconduct upon the part of the jury: (1) plaintiff was taking drugs and was under sedation during the course of the trial to relieve headaches and tightness in his stomach (a fact elicited by defendant's counsel on cross-examination), and (2) plaintiff's wife broke into tears while testifying, as a result of which the court declared a recess. Defendant contends that the taking of the pills tended to paint the picture of a pathetic, withdrawn victim of melancholia, but there is nothing in this record to indicate that the taking of the pills affected plaintiff's appearance, demeanor or mental operations, or cast him in this guise.

  5. O'Brien v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Co.

    227 S.W.2d 690 (Mo. 1950)   Cited 30 times
    In O'Brien v. Louisville N. R. Co., 360 Mo. 229, 227 S.W.2d 690, 693 [6], plaintiff had a verdict of $100,000 for personal injuries.

    After an examination of many cases we conclude the rule in this state to be that an excessive verdict in and of itself does not establish that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice. In Slater v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. App. 824, 24 S.W.2d 660, l.c. 666, the court said: "From the testimony the jury could find that the plaintiff received a permanent injury to his arm of a serious nature and we think a recovery of $4,500.00 is not excessive. The fact that the verdict for $12,500.00 and was excessive in the sum of $8,000.

  6. Settle v. Baldwin

    355 Mo. 336 (Mo. 1946)   Cited 20 times
    In Settle v. Baldwin, 355 Mo. 336, 196 S.W.2d 299, it was held that a railroad was not a statutory employer of one who was loading ice into a refrigerator car as an employee of an ice company which furnished ice to an independent contractor which, in turn, furnished its iced cars to the railroad.

    This was a jury question because as there was sufficient movement of the floor to topple the ice over upon decedent and injure him there was sufficient to constitute negligence and being sufficient to constitute negligence then such negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries or at least was a question for the jury. Stewart v. George B. Peck Co., 234 Mo. App. 864, 135 S.W.2d 405; Slater v. A., T. S.F. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. App. 824, 24 S.W.2d 660; Clark v. Union Iron Foundry Co., 234 Mo. 436, 137 S.W. 577; Freeman v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, 341 Mo. 288, 107 S.W.2d 36; Gray v. Kurn, 345 Mo. 1027, 137 S.W.2d 558; Coble v. St. Louis-S.F.R. Co., 38 S.W.2d 1031; Evans v. Massman Const. Co., 343 Mo. 632, 122 S.W.2d 924; Tateman v. C., R.I. P.R. Co., 96 Mo. App. 448, 70 S.W. 514; Rattan v. Central Electric Co., 120 Mo. 270, 96 S.W. 735; Mastin v. Emery Bird Thayer D.G. Co., 236 Mo. App. 487, 140 S.W.2d 720; State ex rel. Shain v. Emery Bird Thayer D.G. Co., 348 Mo. 650, 154 S.W.2d 775; Gutridge v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 105 Mo. 520, 16 S.W. 943; Erie v. Murphy, 108 F.2d 817; Clark v. S.L. S.F. Ry. Co., 234 Mo. 396, 137 S.W. 583; Fassbinder v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 126 Mo. App. 563, 104 S.W. 1154; Strayer v. Q.O. K.C.R. Co., 170 Mo. App. 514, 156 S.W. 732. (4) The verdict should be reinstated.

  7. Willis v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

    352 Mo. 490 (Mo. 1944)   Cited 29 times

    Stoutimore v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 92 S.W.2d 658; Hudson v. Moonier, 102 F.2d 96; 2 Sherman and Redfield, Negligence (Rev. Ed.), p. 688, sec. 279; Quinlin v. American Car, etc., Co., 225 S.W. 440; McDonald v. Morrison Plumbing Sheet Metal Co., 236 S.W. 418; Bender v. Krager, 276 S.W. 405; Loehring v. Westlake Const. Co., 94 S.W. 797; Allen v. Larabee Flour Mills Corp., 40 S.W.2d 597; Gutridge v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 16 S.W. 943; Slater v. A., T. S.F. Ry. Co., 24 S.W.2d 660; Forbes v. Hessing, 41 S.W.2d 378; Mulloy v. Beal McNamara Painting Co., 214 S.W. 405; Doering v. St. L. O'Fallon Ry. Co., 63 S.W.2d 450; Sykes v. St. L. S.F.R. Co., 77 S.W. 723; Markley v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 90 S.W.2d 409; Folsom v. C., R.I. P. Ry. Co., 157 Kan. 328; Roddy v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 S.W. 1112; St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ewan, 26 F.2d 619; Erie R. Co. v. Murphy, 108 F.2d 817; Lambert v. Jones, 98 S.W.2d 752; Kelly v. Laclede, etc., Co., 155 S.W.2d 90; Bartlett v. Taylor, 174 S.W.2d 844; Railway Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436; S. Ry. Co. v. Booth, 98 Ga. 20, 25 S.E. 928; Maher v. C., M. St. P. Ry. Co., 278 F. 431, 21 N.C.C.A. 371; Deister v. K.C.N. Ry. Co., 195 S.W. 499; Whatley v. Railroad Co., 27 F. Supp. 919; Copeland v. C.B. Q.R. Co., 293 F. 12; K.C.M. O. Ry. Co. v. Pysher, 195 S.W. 981; Gulf, W.T. P. Ry. Co. v. Wittnebert, 108 S.W. 150. (2) The court did not err in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1 because of the facts disclosed by the evidence and the theo

  8. Klotsch v. Collier Son Corp.

    349 Mo. 40 (Mo. 1942)   Cited 56 times

    (2) The verdict is not excessive. Thompson v. Quincy, O. K.C.R. Co., 18 S.W.2d 401; Hein v. Peabody Coal Co., 337 Mo. 626, 85 S.W.2d 604; Byars v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 334 Mo. 278, 66 S.W.2d 894; Brucker v. Gambaro, 9 S.W.2d 918; Holman v. Terminal R., 125 S.W.2d 527; Keyes v. Chicago, B. Q.R. Co., 326 Mo. 236, 31 S.W.2d 50; Stofer v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 41 S.W.2d 614; Powers v. Kansas City, 18 S.W.2d 545; Baker v. Chicago, B. Q.R. Co., 327 Mo. 986, 39 S.W.2d 535; Powelson v. Chicago, M. St. P. Ry. Co., 263 S.W. 149; Roe v. Met. Street Ry. Co., 131 Mo. App. 128, 110 S.W. 611; Stein v. Rainey, 315 Mo. 535, 286 S.W. 53; Blair v. Union Electric L. P. Co., 213 S.W. 976; Slater v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., 24 S.W.2d 660; Tash v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 335 Mo. 1148, 76 S.W.2d 690; Stewart v. Railroad, 149 Mo. App. 456, 130 S.W. 441; Link v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 233 S.W. 834; Brewer v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 259 S.W. 825. [591] ELLISON, J.

  9. Stoutimore v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

    92 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. 1936)   Cited 34 times

    v. Railroad Co., 187 S.W. 840; Hawkins v. Ry. Co., 182 Mo. App. 323, 170 S.W. 459; Carpenter v. Ry. Co., 189 Mo. App. 164, 175 S.W. 234; Peneff v. Ry. Co., 204 N.W. 524; St. L.-S.F. Ry. v. Ewan, 26 F.2d 619; Huhn v. Ruprecht, 2 S.W.2d 760; Gutridge v. Mo. Pac., 105 Mo. 520, 16 S.W. 943; Gunn v. Hemphill Lumber Co., 218 S.W. 978; Roan v. Wells, 14 S.W.2d 488. (3) The defect in the hand brake was not so glaring and obvious as to threaten immediate injury to plaintiff or such that a reasonably prudent man would not have attempted to further operate the hand brake. Kincaid v. Ry. Co., 62 Mo. App. 365; Hoffman v. Peerless White Lime Co., 317 Mo. 86, 296 S.W. 764; Waldron v. Director General, 266 F. 196; Rose v. Mo. Dist. Tel. Co., 328 Mo. 1009, 43 S.W.2d 562; Jewell v. K.C. Bolt Nut Co., 231 Mo. 176, 132 S.W. 703; Messing v. Judge Dolph Drug Co., 322 Mo. 901, 18 S.W.2d 408; Sloan v. Polar Wave Ice Fuel Co., 19 S.W.2d 476; Morris v. Atlas Portland Cement Co., 323 Mo. 307, 19 S.W.2d 865; Slater v. Ry. Co., 24 S.W.2d 660. HYDE, C.