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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 230

62 Mo. 230 (Mo. 1876)

SARAH KEEGAN, Respondent,

v.

DANIEL KAVANAUGH, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1876

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

M. McKeag, for Appellants, cited Butcher vs. Death & Trusdale, 15 Mo. 271; Stiel vs. Ackli, 15 Mo. 291; Jones vs. Yeager, 2 Dillon 64; Devitt vs. Pac. R. R. Co., 50 Mo. 302, and cas. cit.; Wright vs. N. R. C. R. R. Co., 25 N.Y. 566, 570; Hayden vs. S. M. Co., 29 Conn. 548; Callahan vs. Warne, et al., 40 Mo. 317; Foley vs. Alkire, 52 Mo. 317; Const. Mo., Art. I, § 17; Hale's Com. Law, vol. 2, p. 138; Lord Coke's First Inst., ch. 12, § 234, n. d.; Bank of Mo. vs. Anderson, 1 Mo. 234; Wagn. Stat., ch. 80, p. 800, § 22; Hudson vs. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R. Co., 53 Mo. 525; C. & A. R. R. vs. Adler, 56 Ill. 344.

A. J. P. Garesche, for Respondent, cited Hudson vs. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R. Co., 53 Mo. 537; Shearm. & Redf. Negl., 3d ed., pp. 125, 126, § 96; Patterson vs. Pittsburg & Connellsville R. R., 76 Pa. 393; Clark vs. Noxo??, 7 Hurle & N. (Ex.), 937; Snow vs. R. R., 8 Allen 441; Perry vs. Marsh, 25 Ala. 668; Smith vs. City of St. Joseph, 45 Mo. 449; Norton vs. Ittner, 56 Mo. 353; Meyer vs. Chicago R. R., 59 Mo. 229; Huelsenkamp vs. Citizens R. R. Co., 34 Mo. 54; Kennedy vs. N. M. R. R. Co., 36 Mo. 364; Leddy vs. St. L. R. R. Co., 40 Mo. 519; McPheeters vs. Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 24; Kennedy vs. Pacific R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 258; Brown vs. Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 50 Mo. 466.

OPINION

NAPTON, Judge.

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP