Clonts v. Laclede Gaslight Co.

Decision Date07 November 1911
PartiesCLONTS et al. v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles Claflin Allen, Judge.

Action by Beulah Clonts and another against the Laclede Gaslight Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Percy Werner, for appellant. E. C. Crow, G. E. Golterman, and C. D. Corum, for respondents.

NORTONI, J.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, but the case was transferred to this court under the provisions of an act of the Legislature approved June 12, 1909. See Laws Mo. 1909, p. 397. See, also, section 3937, R. S. 1909. And it was thereafter transferred by this court to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of an act of the Legislature approved June 12, 1909. See Laws Mo. 1909, p. 396. See, also, section 3939, R. S. 1909. In due time the case was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Presiding Judge Nixon of that court as will appear by reference to Clonts v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 144 Mo. App. 582, 129 S. W. 238. Subsequently the Supreme Court declared the legislative act approved June 12, 1909 (Laws Mo. 1909, p. 396 [section 3939, R. S. 1909]), which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court to be unconstitutional, as will appear by reference to the cases of State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S. W. 336; State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef, etc., Co. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 S. W. 538; State ex rel. O'Malley v. Nixon, 233 Mo. 345, 138 S. W. 342. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here, and that proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were coram non judice. The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and considering the arguments for a reversal of the judgment, we find ourselves unable to concur in the views of the Springfield Court as expressed in the opinion referred to. See Clonts v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 144 Mo. App. 582, 129 S. W. 238. Indeed, as we read the record, some of the relevant facts tending to show liability on the part of defendant were neither stated nor weighed by the Springfield Court in its opinion. Those facts appear principally in plaintiff's additional abstract which may have been inadvertently overlooked. The case will, therefore, be restated to the end of developing the facts as we ascertain them to be from a reading of both the defendant's abstract and the additional one filed by plaintiff.

The suit is for damages accrued to plaintiffs through the alleged negligence of defendant which resulted in the death of their father. It proceeds by their next friend in behalf of plaintiffs, Cordie, aged eight, and Beulah, aged five, infant daughters of S. C. Clonts, a widower, who came to his death from a charge of electricity entering his body when engaged in operating defendant's elevator. Plaintiffs recovered a verdict and judgment of $5,000, from which defendant prosecutes the appeal.

Defendant, incorporated, owns and conducts an extensive business as a manufacturer of gas and generator of electricity, which it sells and transmits to its patrons in the city of St. Louis. At the time of his death S. C. Clonts, father of plaintiffs, was in defendant's employ engaged in removing débris from one floor to another of defendant's Station A at Second and Convent streets in St. Louis. He used a wheelbarrow in connection with this duty, and it appears he was required to transfer the wheelbarrow loads of débris from one floor of the building to another by means of an electric elevator which defendant maintained therein. This electric elevator was operated by means of a tiller rope, which is described in the evidence as an uninsulated iron or steel cable passing perpendicularly through the elevator around the sheave wheel in the bottom of the shaft to the drum, or motive power, above. To move the elevator up or down, it was Clonts' duty to grasp this uninsulated iron or steel cable, or tiller rope, with sufficient force to turn on the power. Deceased approached the elevator with a wheelbarrow loaded with débris, and grasped the tiller rope, as was usual, with the purpose to move the carriage, when a charge of electricity was communicated from the uninsulated cable, or tiller rope, into his body with sufficient force to occasion his instant death. The elevator, which Clonts was so occasionally required to operate, was propelled by an electric motor which employed a direct electric current of 500 volts. This power, though generated on the premises, was communicated to the elevator by means of an insulated wire, or cable, which came into the building from outside and connected with other like wires of defendant. The petition avers that "at all times hereinafter mentioned defendant company negligently permitted large quantities of roving electricity dangerous to human life to pervade its said premises and said elevator and every part thereof." It then avers that at all times while said electricity was so roving and pervading defendant's premises defendant negligently failed and omitted to protect said iron tiller rope and elevator and the person of deceased, S. C. Clonts, against said electricity by proper and usual insulation and appliances or other suitable safeguards. "That by reason of the presence of said roving electricity, and by reason of defendant's said negligent failure to provide said iron tiller rope and said elevator and the person of said deceased with proper safeguards against said roving electricity, said elevator and all parts thereof were at all times liable to become charged with large quantities of electricity, and was a dangerous and unsafe place for said S. C. Clonts to perform his said duties as laborer at defendant's said plant as aforesaid. That defendant at all times knew, or by the exercise of due care might have known, of the presence of said electricity on said premises, and of the fact that said elevator, iron tiller rope, and the person of said deceased were not supplied with proper safeguards to protect the same against invasion of said electricity, and said impending peril to the life of deceased as aforesaid." It then avers that while Clonts was engaged in the line of his duty on September 6, 1905, and while in the act of grasping the iron or steel tiller rope of the elevator with the purpose to move it, he received into his body from such rope a powerful current of electricity which caused his instant death. The charging portion of the petition then concludes as follows: "Plaintiffs charge the fact to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Messing v. Judge & Dolph Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1929
    ...Mo. 238; Collingsworth v. Zinc Co., 260 Mo. 703; Longree v. Mfg. Co., 120 Mo. App. 478; Osborn v. Nelson, 141 Mo. App. 428; Clonts v. Electric Co., 160 Mo. App. 456; Cabanne v. Car Co., 178 Mo. App. 718; Natt v. Aiken (Mo. App.), 212 S.W. 58; Jaquith v. Plumb (Mo.), 254 S.W. 89; Berkbigler ......
  • Messing v. Judge & Dolph Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1929
    ... ... Longree v. Mfg. Co., 120 Mo.App. 478; Osborn v ... Nelson, 141 Mo.App. 428; Clonts v. Electric ... Co., 160 Mo.App. 456; Cabanne v. Car Co., 178 ... Mo.App. 718; Natt v. Aiken ... ...
  • Clonts v. Laclede Gas Light Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1911
  • Marshall v. Kansas City, Missouri
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1923
    ...City, 189 Mo. l. c. 503, 87 S.W. 1182; Schermer v. McMahon, 108 Mo.App. 36, 82 S.W. 535; Clonts v. Gas Light Co., 160 Mo.App. l. c. 456, 140 S.W. 970.] Appellant's counsel do not appear to controvert the principle of law announced in the preceding sub-proposition "(a)," but insist that such......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT