Alexander v. Forum Cafeteria
| Decision Date | 16 February 1931 |
| Citation | 37 S.W.2d 670,225 Mo.App. 679 |
| Parties | RACHEL ALEXANDER, RESPONDENT, v. FORUM CAFETERIA, INC., APPELLANT |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Thomas J Seehorn, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Mont T Prewitt and Wm. T. Alford for respondent.
Mosman Rogers & Buzard for appellant.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendant appeals.
It is averred in plaintiff's petition that defendant in the month of May, 1926, operated a cafeteria in Kansas City, Missouri; that plaintiff was employed to work therein; that she had charge of what is known as the dessert station; that the desserts were kept by defendant in an ice box, entrance to which was gained by means of a swinging door located back of the place where plaintiff was required to work; that the ice box was built near an aisle; that employees of defendant in the discharge of their duties passed to and fro along said aisle; that in going into and coming out of the ice box it was necessary to leave the door thereof open, and that when open it swung into the aisle along which defendant's employees, in the discharge of their duties, were required to pass; that in May, 1926, while coming out of said ice box, in the discharge of her duties, plaintiff received an injury on account of the door of said ice box being closed upon her by the negligent act of defendant.
The negligence charged is, that defendant failed to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, in this, that when the door of the ice box was opened so as to permit her to go into and out of the ice box which swung into the aisle along which numerous employees were required to pass, said employees were liable to close said door while plaintiff was passing into or out of said ice box and thus catch and injure her; that the ice box was so located that it was too close to said aisle and, for that reason, said employees were liable to bump against or close said door, to her injury, all of which the defendant knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could and would have known.
The answer is a general denial, plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
The defendant presents but one question to this Court, and that question is, "was the plaintiff's injury caused by the negligence of a mere fellow servant?" The statement of facts will therefore be limited to the evidence bearing on the question presented.
The evidence tends to show that plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a waitress in defendant's cafeteria; that she was required from time to time to go into the ice box or refrigerator in which food was kept; that the door was about six feet in height and when opened swung into an aisle, along which fifteen to twenty-five employees of the defendant were required to pass "up and down" while in the discharge of their duties; that one of them passed said ice box on an average of every five minutes; that when the door of the ice box was open it extended into and occupied the entire width of the aisle except ten or twelve inches thereof; that the door of the ice box was closed at all times except when opened to permit employees to enter and leave the same; that at the time in question plaintiff went into the ice box to procure food, and after procuring the same opened the door from the inside, and while she was in the act of leaving the ice box another employee of defendant came from the north along said aisle carrying a tray, struck the ice box door, caused the same to be closed upon plaintiff's left arm and severely injured her; that an employee passing along the aisle, when the door was open, was liable to bump against or strike the door thus causing it to close.
We have stated only the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vassia v. Highland Dairy Farms Co.
... ... Halloway v. Barnes Gro. Co., 223 Mo.App. 1026, 15 ... S.W.2d 917; Alexander v. Forum Cafeteria, 225 ... Mo.App. 679, 37 S.W.2d 670; Hockaday v. Pipe Line ... Co., 66 ... ...
-
Dowell v. City of Hannibal
...61. See also, Frese v. Wells, Mo.Sup., 40 S. W.2d 652, 653; Wilson v. Wells, 321 Mo. 929, 938, 13 S.W.2d 541, 544; Alexander v. Forum Cafeteria, 225 Mo.App. 679, 37 S.W.2d 670; Barken v. S. S. Kresge Co., Mo.App., 117 S.W.2d 674; Stewart v. George B. Peck Co., 234 Mo.App. 864, 135 S.W.2d 40......
-
Armstrong v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.
... ... The question of defendants’ negligence was clearly for the ... jury. Alexander v. Forum Cafeteria, Inc., 225 ... Mo.App. 679, 37 S.W.2d 670, 671; Essenpreis v. Elliott’s ... ...