Shafir v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 23 May 1925
• Docket Number: 25122
• Citation: 274 S.W. 755
• Parties: Joe SHAFIR, Respondent, v. Martin CARROLL et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

274 S.W. 755

Joe SHAFIR, Respondent, v. Martin CARROLL et al., Appellants

No. 25122

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 23, 1925

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1925.

John B Pew, City Counselor, and John D. Wendorff, yasst. City Counselor, both of Kansas City, for appellant Kansas City.

McCune Caldwell & Downing, of Kansas City, for appellant Carroll.

T. J Madden, Achtenberg & Rosenberg, Darius A. Brown, and John G. Park, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

Hogsett & Boyle, of Kansas City, for respondent Altman.

In Banc.

All concur (ATWOOD, J., in result), except GRAVES, C. J., and BLAIR and RAGLAND, JJ., who dissent.

OPINION

Statement

WOODSON J.

The plaintiff instituted this case in the circuit court of Jackson county against Henry Sieben et al., to recover $ 50,000, damages for personal injuries inflicted upon him through the alleged negligence of the defendants. The defendants, Kansas City, the Altmans, and Carroll filed their several general demurrers to the plaintiff's petition, which was by the court sustained, and the plaintiff declining to plead further, a judgment was rendered against him on the demurrer, and from that judgment the plaintiff duly appealed the cause to this court. This court reversed and remanded it to the circuit court, with leave to the plaintiff to file an amended petition, which was accordingly done. That case is Shafir v. Sieben, 233 S.W. 419, 17 A. L. R. 637. See, also, Daneschocky v. Sieble, 195 Mo.App. 470, 479, 193 S.W. 966 and Adelman v. Altman, 209 Mo.App. 583, 240 S.W. 272.

Thereafter the case was retried in the circuit court, and judgment was again rendered for the plaintiff, and from that judgment the defendants, Kansas City and Carroll duly appealed to this court.

This case is a companion case of Lindman v. Kansas City (No. 24005) 271 S.W. 516, decided by this court at this term of the court. It grew out of the same tragedy at the same time, and was produced by the same causes that the plaintiff in that case was injured. A summary of the allegations of the petition and statement of the facts of the case, as shown by the evidence, will be found in the opinion delivered in that case. The pleadings and facts of that case are referred to as being substantially the same as those of this, which will eliminate the necessity of restating them here.

While this case was brought against Kansas City, Ralph J. Smiley and Martin J. Carroll, and the verdict and...