62 Mo. 230 (Mo. 1876), Keegan v. Kavanaugh
|Citation:||62 Mo. 230|
|Opinion Judge:||NAPTON, Judge.|
|Party Name:||SARAH KEEGAN, Respondent, v. DANIEL KAVANAUGH, et al., Appellants.|
|Attorney:||M. McKeag, for Appellants, A. J. P. Garesche, for Respondent,|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
This was a suit by the wife of Keegan to recover damages from his employers, on account of said Keegan being killed by the fall of an embankment of earth, through the negligence of defendants.
The answer set up as a defense, that the deceased was a hod carrier, and had ample opportunity to know the defects of said earthen wall, and therefore defendants were not responsible.
The replication avers, that Keegan " was re-assured in the fear he felt as to the safety of his working by the assurance of Burns, one of the defendants, that there was no danger."
The proof was, that the plaintiff's husband was a hod carrier in the employment of defendants, who were engaged in building a stone wall, at the foot of an embankment of earth, some twenty or thirty feet deep, and that the earth embankment was not shored or propped, and that, by reason of the failure to have...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP