Hoepper v. Southern Hotel Co.
Citation | 44 S.W. 257,142 Mo. 378 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Decision Date | 18 January 1898 |
Parties | HOEPPER v. SOUTHERN HOTEL CO. |
Appeal from circuit court, St. Louis county; Rudolph Hirzel, Judge.
Action by Frances Hoepper against the Southern Hotel Company, in which there was a verdict for defendant. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A. & J. F. Lee, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for respondent.
This is a suit to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff on account of the alleged negligence of defendant in providing for her use, as an employé, defective and dangerous machinery. The petition charges that "on the 14th day of May, 1892, the plaintiff was in the service of the defendant, running a certain steam clothes wringer; that said machine and appliances thereof were, and had been for a long time prior to said time, in a defective and dangerous condition, as defendant, by its agent having charge of keeping the same in repair, well knew; that the springs and appliances of said machine were worn out and loose, whereby said appliance ran rough and jerked; that on said day, while plaintiff was in the discharge of the duty of her employment, adjusting clothes in said wringer, owing to said defective condition of said machine, the rim of the wringer was caused to strike plaintiff's right arm at the elbow with great force, whereby plaintiff's arm was fractured, and muscles and sinews of said arm greatly contused and lacerated, so that her right hand and fingers thereof are drawn out of shape and greatly injured; that defendant was negligent in furnishing said appliances in said defective condition to plaintiff to work with in the discharge of her said employment." Judgment for $10,000 is demanded. By its answer, defendant denies these charges, and avers affirmatively that plaintiff's injuries were caused by her own negligence directly contributing thereto. The wringing machine with which plaintiff was employed to work was run by steam power. The evidence tends to prove that for some time the machine had been so out of repair and worn that the appliance into which the clothes were placed ran "roughly and jerked," by reason of which the clothes, placed therein for drying, did not always remain in proper position, and required adjustment. In order to adjust the clothes when thrown out of place it was necessary for the operator to put her hand into the basket, as it was called, which contained the clothes. While in operation, this basket revolved rapidly, but smoothly and regularly, when in proper order. When out of order, it ran roughly and jerked. The machine could be easily stopped, and the evidence tends to prove that plaintiff had been instructed never to put her hand into the basket while it was in motion. Plaintiff denied that she had such instructions. Plaintiff knew that the machine was out of order, and the evidence tends to prove that defendant's forewoman, who had charge of the business, also knew its condition, and knew that plaintiff continued to work thereat. Several attempts were made to repair the machine while plaintiff was using it. On the morning of the 14th of May, 1892, while plaintiff was operating the machine, the clothes got out of place; and, while the machine was in operation, plaintiff put her hand in the basket, in order to put the clothes in place, and her arm was struck by the rim of the basket, and was thereby injured. The evidence tended to prove that the injury was occasioned by the sudden jerking of the basket, caused by the said defects in the machine.
At the request of defendant, the court gave the jury a number of instructions, of which 1, 2, 6, and 10 are as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murphy v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 38280.
...ruling unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion. Reichmuth v. Adler, supra; Hoepper v. Southern Hotel Co., 142 Mo. 378, 44 S.W. [4] The general rule that trial courts have a wide discretion in passing upon motions for new trial applies to orders sustaining a ......
-
Teague v. Plaza Express Co., 40319.
...Thompson v. St. Joseph Ry. Co., 131 S.W. (2d) 574; Bunyan v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 12, 29 S.W. 842; Hoepper v. Southern Hotel Co., 142 Mo. 378, 44 S.W. 257; Ittner v. Hughes, 133 Mo. 679, 34 S.W. 1110; Stafford v. Ryan, 276 S.W. 636; Wolfson v. Cohen, 55 S.W. 2d 677. (3) The trial cour......
-
Teague v. Plaza Exp. Co.
......Joseph Ry. Co., 131 S.W.2d 574;. Bunyan v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 127 Mo. 12, 29 S.W. 842; Hoepper v. Southern Hotel Co., 142 Mo. 378, 44. S.W. 257; Ittner v. Hughes, 133 Mo. 679, 34 S.W. 1110; ......
-
Zesch v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia
...... proper consideration of the evidence. Sanders v. Southern. Ry. Co., 147 Mo. 411, 48 S.W. 855; Lewis v. Zagata, 350 Mo. 446, 166 S.W.2d 541; Gardner v. ... sustained, the appellate court will be liberal in upholding. the trial court's action. Hoepper v. Southern Hotel. Co., 142 Mo. 378, 44 S.W. 257. In the case at bar the. jury might have ......