Opinion
No. 38127.
September 8, 1942. Rehearing Denied and Motion to Transfer to Banc Overruled, November 10, 1942.
1. NEGLIGENCE: Railroads: Trial: Testimony Not in Violation of Physical Law. Plaintiff testified that he was thrown to the side off the rear end of a freight train when it suddenly stopped. His testimony indicated that he was braced against being thrown forward, and that there was a jerk, shake or rebound that threw him sidewards off the back of the car on which he was standing. This was not contrary to physical law.
2. NEGLIGENCE: Railroads: Violent Stop: Submissible Case. The evidence was sufficient to make a submisible case of a negligent violent and sudden stop of defendant's freight train, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the top of the rear car.
3. TRIAL: Jury Has Sole Responsibility of Finding Facts. The jury has the sole responsibility of finding facts in law cases, so that when the case has been submitted to them upon substantial evidence, it is not the function of an appellate court to disagree with their view as to what are the true facts.
On Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Transfer to Banc.4. TRIAL: Evidence: Plaintiff's Testimony Not Completely Contradictory or Impossible. Plaintiff's testimony was not so contradictory that one part destroys the other. It presented substantial evidence of a rebound following a sudden stop of defendant's freight train and was not contrary to physical law. The jury had the right to interpret the descriptive terms used by plaintiff.
5. APPEAL AND ERROR: Transfer to Banc Not Required for Appeal to Supreme Court of the United States. After an adverse ruling in division, a transfer to banc is not required in order to take an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in a case under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. James E. McLaughlin, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Carleton S. Hadley, Walter N. Davis and Arnot L. Sheppard for appellant.
(1) Respondent's evidence that the sudden and violent stop of the train while moving south threw him north over the rear end of the train is directly in conflict with well known physical laws, and is therefore wholly insufficient to make a prima facie case. Dunn v. Alton R. Co., 340 Mo. 1037, 104 S.W.2d 311; Daniels v. Kansas City Electric R. Co., 177 Mo. App. 280. (2) Respondent's evidence is wholly insufficient to establish that the stop was unusually sudden or violent. Gulf, Mobile Northern R. Co. v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, 72 L.Ed. 370, and cases cited. (a) Because this action is based upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the decisions of the federal courts are controlling. Cox v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 335 Mo. 1226, 76 S.W.2d 411. (b) The rule of the federal court determining under what conditions a verdict will be directed is that "where the evidence is undisputed, or of such conclusive character that if a verdict were returned for one party, whether plaintiff or defendant, it would have to be set aside in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, a verdict may and should be directed for the other party." Small v. Lamborn, 267 U.S. 248, 45 S.Ct. 300, 69 L.Ed. 597; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Pa. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U.S. 333, 53 S.Ct. 391, 77 L.Ed. 819; Southern Ry. Co. v. Walters, 284 U.S. 190, 52 S.Ct. 58, 76 L.Ed. 239. (1) Respondent was riding upon a freight train, not as a passenger but as appellant's servant. If it is conceded that he was knocked off the freight car, the evidence is yet insufficient to warrant this judgment; whether judged by the federal, Missouri, or the general rule. Chesapeake Ohio R. Co. v. Thomason, 70 F.2d 860; Martin v. St. Louis-S.F.R. Co., 302 Mo. 506, 258 S.W. 1023; Hedrick v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 195 Mo. 104; Hawk v. C., B. Q.R. Co., 130 Mo. App. 658; Portuchek v. Wabash R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 52; Elliott v. C., M. St. P.R. Co., 236 S.W. 17; Hunt v. C., B. Q.R. Co., 165 N.W. 105. The evidence of appellant is so conclusive that there was no unusually sudden or violent stop that respondent's contrary theory is wholly insubstantial. (1-a) The physical facts testified to by respondent contradict his expressed opinion that the stop was extraordinary. First: He heard no "running out" of slack. Second: There was no decrease of speed before the stop. Third: He heard no grinding or squeaking of brake shoes against the wheels. Fourth: The entire train of 63 cars stopped almost instantly. He says it did not move more than a foot or two after the stop. (1-b) Moreover, this court's rule respecting the sufficiency of respondent's evidence in this case apparently now parallels the federal court's rule. Appellant's uncontradicted evidence shows that the train was handled in the usual manner; that the air brakes were properly applied; that the speed at the time of the application of the brakes was not more than from four to six miles an hour; that at such speed there can be no suddenly violent stop, even though the independent or engine brake is used (as it was not), rather than the automatic brake (which was used). This evidence of appellant is not denied. Since respondent failed to explain or deny it, after opportunity to do so, it will be accepted as true. Adams v. Othenin's Estate, 161 S.W.2d 415; State ex rel. Bowdon v. Allen, 85 S.W.2d 63; Rohrmoser v. Household Finance Corp., 86 S.W.2d 103; Wills v. Berberich's Delivery Co., 134 S.W.2d 125. (c) Respondent tried to leave the impression that the alleged sudden stop may have resulted from an application of the independent or engine brake, or that there may have been a car with a defective air brake mechanism, called a "dynamiter" (a car upon which the brakes set suddenly). His testimony does not prove but only suggests these theories. Any verdict based upon these premises will necessarily result from mere speculation, and therefore cannot be upheld. Lappin v. Prebe, 131 S.W.2d 511, and cases cited; Wills v. Berberich's Delivery Co., 134 S.W.2d 125. (3) Respondent submitted his case upon a finding of general negligence, requiring the jury to find only (1) an unusually sudden stop and jerk; (2) which threw respondent over the end of the car; and (3) that the stop directly resulted from appellant's negligence. (a) Res ipsa loquitur does not apply to this case, as the cause of the alleged sudden stop is not shown. If the cause is not known, how can it be said that it (the cause) was a negligent one? Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Construction Co., 269 Mo. 104. (b) Moreover, respondent testified to nothing except the bare casualty. The fact of injury alone is never a sufficient basis for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Construction Co., 269 Mo. 104; Batson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 75 F.2d 154; Interstate Circuit, Inc., v. Le Normand, 100 F.2d 160; Tayer v. York Ice Machinery Co., 119 S.W.2d 240. (c) Even if we accept respondent's evidence as being one hundred per centum true, it does no more at best than balance probabilities. It goes no further than to show "that the accident may have happened as the result of one of two or more causes, and it is not more reasonably probable that it was due to the negligence of the defendant than to any other cause." Interstate Circuit, Inc., v. Le Normand, 100 F.2d 160; Polokoff v. Sanell, 52 S.W.2d 443; McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 97, 94 S.W. 872. This court has gone even further and held that to make res ipsa loquitur effective, "the facts relied on ought to be such as reasonably to exclude all defensive inferences attributable by operation of law to the negligence of the plaintiff, or that of a fellow servant (absent a fellow-servant statute), defects in the lethal instrumentality which are latent; (2) or so recent in happening as to afford no reasonable opportunity for their discovery, lack of causal connection, and the assumption of the usual hazards of the employment." Tayer v. York Ice Machine Corp., 119 S.W.2d 240; Removich v. Bambrick Bros. Const. Co., 264 Mo. 43, 173 S.W. 686, L.R.A. 1917E, 233.
Cox, Blair Kooreman for respondent.
(1) Appellant's reliance upon Gulf, Mobile Northern Railroad Co. v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, is not warranted. The facts of that case do not resemble those of this case. The decisions demonstrate that this claim of appellant is not valid. (2) "It is the duty of a reviewing court, after a verdict for plaintiff, to assume the most favorable statement of the plaintiff's case to be true, unless some particular request for instructions makes it mandatory to deal with conflicting evidence." Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468. The Missouri decisions support the rule. (a) The fact that a jury might "have drawn a different conclusion from his" (plaintiff's) "evidence or have disbelieved it in essential points" makes no difference. The jury's finding settles those matters. Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468. The Missouri decisions are the same way. (b) There is no authority for any rule which questions a jury's power and duty to find, as it is convinced it ought to find, on conflicting evidence. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Dosten, 109 U.S. l.c. 32; Delk v. St. L. S.F.R. Co., 220 U.S. l.c. 587. (3) Appellant claims that there is some "rule in the federal courts" which aids it here, whereby it may secure a reversal upon the weight of the evidence. Appllant's citations are not in point, and there is no such rule. The usual rule applies and assures to respondent that the evidence is to be viewed in the most favorable light from his point of view. Tex. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468. That matter is fully covered by a recent decision of this court and a long line of United States Supreme Court decisions, cited by this court. Hardin v. I.C.R., 334 Mo. 1169, 70 S.W.2d 1075, and cases cited, certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 574; Parrent v. M. O. Rd. Co., 334 Mo. 1202. (4) There was ample evidence to justify the jury in finding a sudden and violent stop occurred. Respondent was a veteran brakeman. He was on the car when the shock came. He had experienced some violent shocks in the same position, given him by a like cause. He had both the general and particular experiences to qualify him to speak and was in a position to enable him to know. He was in a position of peril, circumstances considered. Appellant's citations do not apply. Tex. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468; Meyers v. Wells, 273 S.W. 110; Robert v. N.Y.C.R. Co., 122 S.W.2d 1. (5) Both divisions of this court have often announced the rule appellant now invokes, as follows: "It requires an extraordinary case to authorize a court to regard sworn testimony as manifestly impossible and untrue . . . so frequently do unlooked-for results attend the meeting of interacting forces that courts should not indulge in arbitrary deductions from physical law except when they appear to be so clear and irrefutable that no room is left for the entertainment, by reasonable minds, of any other." Schupback v. Meshevsky, 300 S.W. 465; Parrent v. M. O.R. Co., 334 Mo. 1202; Gately v. St. L.S.F. Ry. Co., 332 Mo. 1; Murphy v. Wolferman, Inc., 148 S.W.2d 481. Another statement of the rule is to the effect that physical facts may be proved and considered, if relevant, but "proof of such a nature cannot be construed to establish a particular conclusion, as a matter of law unless all the facts and circumstances lead to but one conclusion to the exclusion of all others." 32 C.J.S., sec. 1031, pp. 1074, 1075. The same doctrine is laid down in another work, which also cites many decisions, including ten Missouri Supreme Court decisions, which approve 10 R.C.L., pages 1008, 1009. 20 Am. Jur., sec. 1183, p. 1034. (6) Decisions settle certain rules as proper guides to an approach to an investigation of a claim that testimony is impossible and utterly incredible, as opposed to physical law. (7) Respecting the question in hand, it is settled law that "the proposition must be supported by demonstration, not by mere conflict of evidence, and in order to present it properly all the necessary data for demonstration must affirmatively appear and not depend upon the credibility of witnesses." Winkler v. P. M. Mining Co., 141 Wis. 244, 247. (a) The absence from the record, as in this case, of important, relevant "demonstrations" made before the jury and the trial judge is highly important on the question here. Winkler v. P. M. Mining Co., supra. (b) A third rule is that in every case where any doubt can arise the court's duty is to remit the question to the jury. Walters v. Syracuse R.T. Co., 178 N.Y. 50. (c) On a claim of incredibility of testimony, as in conflict with physical law, "it is as easy to demonstrate the truth before the jury as it is before the court." Walters v. Syracuse R.T. Co., 178 N.Y. 50. (d) Certain "demonstrations" and "indications" of conditions which were relevant to the present question were put before the jury and trial judge, but are not shown here by the record. Both the jury and the trial court found the testimony was not "incredible" or "impossible." (8) The jury, from common knowledge, were authorized to interpret the evidence in the light of the instinct of self-preservation. The Supreme Court of the United States has held: "The presumption is founded on a law of nature. We know of no more universal instinct than that of self-preservation — none that so insistently urges to care against injury. It has its motives to its exercise in the fear of pain, maiming and death. There are few presumptions based on human experience that have surer foundation than that expressed in the instruction objected to." B. O.R. Co. v. Landrigan, 191 U.S. 461, 474. The jury has the right and the duty, in their deliberations, to call into service their "common knowledge" and experience and "relations among men," their "common sense," their knowledge of "natural" and "universal" instincts of men. Jurors are not required or able to lay these aside. They necessarily, in the jury box, employ their reasoning powers with all these things in active exercise as a part of each juryman. "It is a part of the jury system." Dunlop v. United States, 163 U.S. 486; B. O.R. Co. v. Landrigan, 191 U.S. 461; Rostad v. Portland Ry. Co., 101 Or. 569; Jenney Elec. Co. v. Branham, 145 Ind. 314, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 790. There can be no objection to the fact that some material, essential element of plaintiff's case, or of a defense, is not proved by definite, affirmative testimony, "but is found by the jury's verdict by" processes of reasoning from the evidence. Van Brock v. Bank, 161 S.W.2d 258, 260, 261; the quotation from Thayer in the next above opinion is pertinent. Jurors are not to "abdicate their common sense, or adopt any different processes of reasoning from those" they use in their affairs of consequence. "Their sound common sense . . . is the most valuable feature of the jury system," and it is that which "preserves its popularity." Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 487, 499, 500. (9) "Persons in sudden emergencies, and called upon to act under peculiar circumstances, are not held to the exercise of the same degree of caution as in other cases" (citation). Even in the case of an employee of a railroad company, claiming to have been injured as the result of the company's negligence, this court has said that in determining whether "he has been negligent, `regard must always be had to the exigencies of his position, indeed, to all the circumstances of the particular occasion.'" U.P. Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 152 U.S. 262, 281, 282, and cases cited. (10) Courts do not hold an injured man to any exact memory and reproduction on the trial of everything which happened at the time of his peril and injury. Missouri has approved that rule and denied that a contrary claim had "any merit." There the question concerned conflict with physical law, and the court held: "Plaintiff in all probability could not relate all of the acrobatic movements performed when he suddenly stepped off into space. So whether both legs or only one went down into the hole does not change the situation." Pettyjohn v. Interstate H. P. Co., 161 S.W.2d 248, 251.
This is an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (U.S.C.A., Title 45, Secs. 51-59) for damages for personal injuries. The applicability of the Federal Act was conceded. Plaintiff had verdict and judgment for $18,000.00, from which defendant appealed.
The sole issue raised is whether the court should have directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff, a brakeman, was injured by a fall from the top of a freight car. The negligence alleged and submitted was that "said train was caused to stop with unusual and extraordinary suddenness and jerk." Defendant contends that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove such a violent sudden stop and that his testimony concerning its result is in conflict with physical law.
Plaintiff was the "rear man" stationed on the end car (there was no caboose) of a 63-car freight train, going south toward East St. Louis. He estimated that, when he fell, the train was running at from eight to ten miles per hour. It was after 10 P.M. on a rainy, foggy March night, "spitting snow and sleet," temperature at 34. The footing on the runway on top of this rear freight car, made of three boards running lengthwise, was wet and slippery because of rain, melting sleet and snow. There was another train running behind plaintiff's train, and it was his duty to protect the rear end of his train by signals to prevent the following train from running into it. Plaintiff's train made three usual stops at crossings going into East St. Louis, and he said he was injured when a fourth unexpected stop was made soon after the train had started from the third regular stop. (Defendant's evidence denied that any such subsequent stop occurred.) Plaintiff, according to his testimony, was standing on the runway on top of the rear box car about eight feet from the end of the car, facing northwest. The train had been traveling east (or southeast) from the last stop but at this point the engine and the front part of the train was on a curve to the south. (In much of the testimony it is said that the train was going south, and that plaintiff fell off the north end.)
Plaintiff's version of what happened was as follows:
"The train was stopped all of a sudden with a terrific stop, or unusual stop, and it was from straight air. . . . It stopped unusual, and buckled and twisted in every shape. . . . Q. Just what the effect on you was when that stop occurred. What did it do to you? A. Well, a man generally braces, as well as he can brace himself, and it swung me one way. . . . Q. Was that towards the front or rear? A. Towards the front, because you are braced that way, and then the sudden jerk of the train, the sudden stop, it knocked me off the the rear end. Q. And, with reference to any motion, was there any other motion of the car beside front and back? A. It jerked and swung around, and wrastled around."
Plaintiff also demonstrated before the jury to show how he was braced and how the forces applied in the stop operated. Plaintiff said that in his railroad experience of more than thirty years he had seen few such violent stops, "not over six or seven of them"; that he had been "knocked down on top several times," but was never before "knocked off." Plaintiff was seen to fall by a man approaching the track in an automobile, who was defendant's witness. He said: "There was a lot of cars just over the crossing, and I could see a man standing on top of one of them, with a lantern, and just as I made the turn to cross the crossing I saw this lantern fall. . . . It seemed to fall over the back end." He was not sure that the cars were moving at the time but said if so they were "moving awful slow." He went at once to plaintiff's assistance and was told by him "he had been knocked off the car." Plaintiff was lying with his head toward the car about five feet from the wheels. It was defendant's theory that plaintiff (who was blind in one eye) missed his step in attempting to climb down the rear ladder. (Defendant's claim seems to be that plaintiff was injured at the third regular stop where there was a switching movement made.)
[693] Defendant's contention as to impossibility of plaintiff's testimony is that it is in violation of "the law of inertia: that a mass once set in motion will continue in the same direction and at the same momentum unless acted upon by some other physical law." Defendant argues thus: "If, therefore, respondent was standing still on the top of the box car (as he says he was), not touching anything except standing on the runway on the car (as he says he was), and if that car was moving south (as he says it was), then it is implicit in the acceptance of that law that he would continue to move south except for the counteracting intervention of some other physical law. . . . Therefore, it is certain that, while standing on top of the box car with nothing to lean against or hold to, respondent could do nothing which could possibly counteract, modify or affect in the slightest degree the law of inertia, and respondent could not by his own efforts prevent himself from being thrown south rather than north by the alleged sudden stop of the train."
However, plaintiff did also testify on cross-examination as follows:
"Q. Well, I mean what first indicated to you that there was a stop? A. The first intimation I got, the jar, and then I was thrown off. That is the first indication that I got. Q. Did you hear any noise before the jar came? A. Yes, there was some noise. Q. Well, you know the kind — A. That was because I was braced towards the engine. . . . It knocked me off sideways. Q. It knocked you off sideways? A. Yes, sir. Right off the back of the train, but I was knocked off sideways. . . . Q. You didn't fall over the side of the car? A. No, off of the end. I was knocked off of the end. . . . It was a shake and I was off the car."
Defendant relies on Dunn v. Alton R. Co., 340 Mo. 1037, 104 S.W.2d 311, and Daniels v. Kansas City Electric R. Co., 177 Mo. App. 280. In the Dunn case, the plaintiff's testimony was held to be in violation of physical law and impossible, where he was inside a passenger train and claimed to have been thrown out of the cars by a sudden stop. However, he said that the application of the brakes threw him south when the train was going north (when such force would be to the north); then that the release of the brakes threw him north (when this force would be to the south); and then, while the train was on a curve to the east, that he was thrown out of the vestibule door to the west. This is very different from the situation here where plaintiff said that the first force of the stop did swing him toward the front of the train but did not cause him to fall forward because he was "braced that way." This likewise distinguishes the situation here from that in the Daniels case.
Defendant's argument here is based on the assumption that only one single force could have been applied to plaintiff. It is true that parts of plaintiff's cross-examination, other than that above quoted, would be susceptible of the construction for which defendant contends. However, when all of plaintiff's testimony is considered together most favorably to his claim (as it must be in ruling the sufficiency of his evidence to make a jury case) there is substantial evidence to show that the first force applied in the stop did operate in the direction defendant says the law of inertia would operate but that plaintiff was not thrown forward by it because he was braced against it. It does not seem unreasonable to believe that there would be some jerk back or rebound immediately thereafter from such a sudden stop. It is true that plaintiff said it happened quickly (indicating with a snap of his fingers) but only such a sudden stop would likely have caused him to lose his balance. Therefore, we think it would be reasonable for the jury to find that there was in operation more than a single force in one direction only; that there was a sudden jerk, shake, or rebound as well as a sudden slackening; that the forces applied in bringing the train to a sudden stop operated both forward and backward; and that plaintiff would not be thrown down forward when braced against a force operating in that direction but could, because of the violence of that force and slick condition of his footing, lose his balance so as to be thrown off the end of the car by subsequently acting forces from those movements which he described as "buckled," "twisted," "jerked," "swung around" and "wrastled around." Defendant also argues that it would require considerable time and distance for the slack between the cars to run out. However, this would undoubtedly depend somewhat on grade (which was not shown) and other factors such as speed and whether the engine was working steam or drifting. It does not seem impossible that it could be taken up quickly and plaintiff did say "there [694] was some noise." Moreover, in such a sudden emergency the jury might reasonably consider that the time element seemed shorter to him than it was and that he "could not relate all the acrobatic movements performed." [Pettyjohn v. Interstate Heating Plumbing Co. (Mo. Sup.), 161 141 S.W.2d 248, l.c. 251.] Upon consideration of all that plaintiff said we do not think we would be justified in disregarding his testimony as in violation of physical law and impossible. We have often said that "so frequently do unlooked-for-results attend the meeting of interacting forces that courts should not indulge in arbitrary deductions from physical law except when they appear to be so clear and irrefutable that no room is left for the entertainment, by reasonable minds, of any other." [Parrent v. M. O.R.R. Co., 334 Mo. 1202, 70 S.W.2d 1068; Gately v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 332 Mo. 1, 14, 56 S.W.2d 54; Murphy v. Fred Wolferman, Inc., 347 Mo. 634, 148 S.W.2d 481, 485.] We hold that this rule should be followed here.
Defendant, in its contention that there was not sufficient evidence to show a negligent sudden violent stop, relies upon Gulf, Mobile Northern R. Co. v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, 48 S.Ct. 151, 72 L.Ed. 370. However, in the Wells case, the plaintiff was not on the train but on the ground trying to get on the train and, because his foot turned on a piece of coal, the court said: "He could not compare with any accuracy the jerk which he then felt with those he had experienced when riding on freight trains." The court also said that "there was no evidence that the engineer knew or should have known that Wells was not on the train, but was attempting to get on it after it had started and was in a situation in which a jerk of the train would be dangerous to him." It, therefore, held there was no substantial evidence of the engineer's negligence. A case more like this one is Texas Pacific R. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468, 23 S.Ct. 622, 47 L.Ed. 905. There a brakeman was required to be on top of cars covered with ice. He claimed the engine moving the cars stopped suddenly so that "the cars ran forward to the extent of the slack and back again"; and that the jerk upset his balance, causing him to be thrown between the cars. The court said that "the jury might have drawn a different conclusion from his evidence, or have disbelieved it in essential points, but they also were at liberty to find, as they must be taken to have found, that the foregoing statement is true"; and that "when the particulars and known condition of the train makes a sudden bump obviously dangerous to those known to be on top of the cars, we are not prepared to say that a jury would not be warranted in finding that an easy stop is a duty." So here, the evidence is sufficient to show that the engineer knew or should have known that plaintiff was required to be on the rear car because of the following train and of course he knew what the weather conditions were. [Other cases in which the evidence was held sufficient to show a negligent stop or jerk are Southern R. Co. v. Smith (Ala.), 128 So. 228; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Remel (Ark.), 48 S.W.2d 548, cert. den. 287 U.S. 634, 53 S.Ct. 85, 77 L.Ed. 550; Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Leinen (Ark.), 223 S.W. 1, cert. den. 254 U.S. 648, 41 S.Ct. 62, 65 L.Ed. 456; McGraw v. Southern R. Co. (N.C.), 175 S.E. 286; C., R.I. P.R. Co. v. Owens (Okla.), 186 P. 1092, cert. den. 253 U.S. 489, 40 S.Ct. 485, 64 L.Ed. 1027; Baker v. Grace (Texas), 213 S.W. 299, l.c. 305 (claim of missing step); Texas N.O.R. Co. v. Cammack (Texas), 280 S.W. 864, cert. den. 273 U.S. 720, 47 S.Ct. 111, 71 L.Ed. 858; Ward v. Denver R.G.W.R. Co. (Utah), 85 P.2d 837; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Normile (2d U.S.C.C.A.), 254 F. 680; Slocum v. Erie R. Co. (2d U.S.C.C.A.), 47 F.2d 216; Norfolk W.R. Co. v. Fraley (6th U.S.C.C.A.), 69 F.2d 775.]
Defendant's evidence here showed that its engineer had no reason to make a violent sudden stop (and he denied that he did) because of any emergency after leaving the last regular crossing stop. It was shown (in the engineer's deposition) that he had been on this run only eleven days; that he was not in good health; that he had some kind of nervous condition; and that he was under the care of a physician at and prior to the time when plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff here related what he claimed occurred and according to his testimony, this caused him to be thrown off the end of the car. There is no dispute about the fact that he did fall from the rear car and it was for the jury to say whether it believed his testimony as to what occurred and its effect. There was some controversy at the trial and conflicting evidence as to whether the engineer used engine air (brakes applied only to the engine itself) to stop the train (see Missouri Pacific R. Co. [695] v. Remel, supra), as suggested in plaintiff's evidence; or automatic air (brakes applied at the same time to all the cars in the train) as claimed by defendant. So far as appears, there could have been a negligent violent stop by either method, especially under the weather conditions shown and plaintiff's precarious position. However, the use of engine air was not the negligence charged and submitted, and defendant made no request for a more detailed charge or submission. Therefore, upon the authority of the Behmyer case, and the other cases above cited, we hold that plaintiff's testimony as to the violence and suddenness of the stop and jerk caused by the engineer in applying the brakes, under all the circumstances shown, and its effect, was sufficient to make a jury case on this issue. We also hold that the negligence charged and submitted was sufficient as specific negligence (in the absence of any attack on the pleadings); and that there is no issue of res ipsa loquitur in the case as defendant now suggests for the first time on appeal.
Defendant also claims that the rule of the federal courts requires this court to hold that a verdict should have been directed for it because the evidence was so conclusive against plaintiff as to require the trial court to set aside the verdict, citing Small Co. v. Lamborn Co., 267 U.S. 248, 45 S.Ct. 300, 69 L.Ed. 597; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Pa. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U.S. 333, 53 S.Ct. 391, 77 L.Ed. 819; Southern Ry. Co. v. Walters, 284 U.S. 190, 52 S.Ct. 58, 76 L.Ed. 239. We fully discussed this contention in Hardin v. Illinois Central R. Co., 334 Mo. 1169, 70 S.W.2d 1075 (certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 574, 55 S.Ct. 86, 79 L.Ed. 672) reviewing these cases and others from decisions of Chief Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Story to date. We reached the conclusion that under our system of administration of justice the jury must have the sole responsibility of finding facts in law cases, so that when the case has been submitted to them upon substantial evidence, on correct instructions telling them what facts are essential to their verdict, it is not the function of an appellate court to disagree with their view as to what are the true facts. (As shown by their verdict.) Our system is based on the idea that the jury is a highly important democratic institution which enables citizens to participate directly in the administration of justice. The result should be, if citizens take this obligation seriously, that all the people will know that they, as well as lawyers and judges, have a part in making the law work to do justice, because they alone, as members of the jury, determine the facts to which the law is to be applied. Thus the administration of justice is, and in a true democracy we think it must be, made a part of the responsibility of every citizen. We are convinced that the authorities discussed in the Hardin case require continuation of the historic function of the jury on this basis.
The judgment is affirmed. Bradley and Dalton, CC., concur.
The foregoing opinion by HYDE, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur except Hays, J., absent.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION TO TRANSFER TO BANC.
On motion for rehearing, defendant contends that we have "seized fragments of respondent's evidence which are clearly contradicted by his evidence as a whole, and held that the jury might be permitted to base its verdict upon these isolated fragments of his evidence"; and that we held "that the jury had a right to disregard the solemn testimony of respondent and base its verdict upon a wholly speculative theory (of a rebound of cars in the stop) not only unsupported by any evidence, but contradicted by respondent's own evidence." This contention really amounts to a reargument of defendant's claim that it was impossible for a sudden stop to cause plaintiff to fall off the rear end of the car.
We fully agree that plaintiff's testimony must be considered as a whole and that, if so viewed, it is so completely contradictory that one part destroys the other then it amounts to nothing, is not substantial evidence, and will not sustain a verdict. [Steele v. K.C. Southern Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 97, 175 S.W. 177; Adelsberger v. Sheehy, 332 Mo. 954, 59 S.W.2d 644.] However, we do not think this is true of plaintiff's evidence in this case, and we have explained why we so ruled. We have also explained why we do not consider plaintiff's account of the occurrence, and its results, to be impossible. We think the jurors could understand what it means to [696] brace oneself against the operation of the law of inertia (whether standing in a farm wagon, in a bus, or on top a freight car); also that the effect of a sudden stop might unbalance one so braced (especially on slippery footing) even if his bracing has prevented him from being thrown forward; and further, that when cars are coupled together the slack in the couplings can operate both ways when there is a sudden stop. Plaintiff's account was not as perfect a description as might have been made by a professor of English, but we think it was sufficient to show that there were forces operating both ways. (In fact it is almost impossible to believe there would not be a rebound, of cars coupled together, from such a stop.) Furthermore, we think that the interpretation of plaintiff's descriptive terms "shake." "jerked," "twisted," etc., were for the jury, in the light of all facts and circumstances they believed to be true from the evidence; and that plaintiff's testimony taken as a whole provided a reasonable basis for their verdict. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
On motion to transfer to Banc, defendant calls attention to the recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U.S. 98, 62 S.Ct. 962, 86 L.Ed. 895, and insists that such transfer is required. However, we have ruled in McAllister v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Term. R. Co., 324 Mo. 1005, 25 S.W.2d 791, that Section 4 of the Amendment of 1890 to Section 6 of our Constitution does not require transfer when "the alleged cause of action rests on the Federal Employers' Liability Act" (45 U.S.C.A., Secs. 51-59), because "neither the validity of the act nor `authority exercised under the United States' is drawn in question." [See also Scheufler v. Manufacturing Lumbermen's Underwriters, No. 27663-64, 349 Mo. 855, 163 S.W.2d 749, decided May Term, 1942, for further interpretation of the Gorman case.] We adhere to our ruling in the McAllister case.
The motion to transfer to the Court en Banc is also overruled. Bradley and Dalton, CC., concur.
The foregoing opinion by HYDE, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur except Hays, J., absent.