Anderson v. American Sash & Door Co.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 11838.,11838. |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. AMERICAN SASH & DOOR CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jos. A. Guthrie, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Lucy Anderson against the American Sash & Door Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Griffin & Orr, of Kansas City, for appellant. J. C. Rosenberger, William F. Woodruff and R. E. Talbert, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
Defendant owns a sash and door manufacturing establishment and a sales department. In that department plaintiff was injured while attempting to enter an elevator used for the convenience of its customers. She brought this action for damages, and recovered $2,000.
The fact that defendant has based much of its defense, as well as argument relating thereto, on the evidence in its own behalf, makes necessary to repeat what has been so often said that we are but little concerned with the evidence in favor of the losing party. We must accept as the facts of the case the evidence in plaintiff's behalf, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom must also be set down in her favor.
From the case, as made for plaintiff, it appears that she and her mother went to defendant's place of business to purchase some doors. On entering, they were received by one of defendant's clerks who, on learning what they wanted, asked them to follow him down the hall, which they did until they came to the front of a freight elevator, also used for passengers. The opening in the front of this elevator was closed or secured with a wooden open work gate which moved in response to the movement of the elevator. That is, just before or as the elevator reached a floor, the gate would raise and just after it started on, the gate would drop back and close the opening. The speed of movement of the gate was kept in control by weights attached to pulleys. The clerk who thus invited plaintiff and her mother to follow him, called to an employé to operate the elevator which was then standing there, the gate up, ready, to all appearances, for persons to step in. Plaintiff went up to the elevator (her mother and the clerk just behind her), and the man who was to operate it stepped in just ahead of her and said to her, "Wait a minute," and she stopped immediately at the entrance, when the gate fell from above and struck her on the head, inflicting the injury of which she complains.
There is a question between the parties whether the petition charges general or specific negligence. The charge is as follows:
"* * * That just as she entered said elevator as a passenger pursuant to said invitation, a large and heavy object which served as a gate or door to said elevator shaft, through the carelessness and negligence of defendant, its agents and servants, was allowed to fall from above, and strike plaintiff a severe blow on the top of her head, causing plaintiff to be injured as follows."
A question of this nature is sometimes confusing from the different meaning which may be given to the word, "general," as distinguished from "specific." It is rare that a pleader alleges merely that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant. He may, and usually does, limit the negligence in some very general way, and still will plead a case of general negligence. For instance, he will allege that he was a passenger and was injured by a derailment of the train. That would be a general charge, though limited to a derailment and evidence of an injury by falling in the aisle or in attempting to leave a standing car would not be admissible.
If he pleads the immediate cause of the injury, such as a wreck of the train, but does not plead the negligence that caused it (as for instance, defective ties, broken wheel, collision, or the like), his charge will be general negligence, and, while he must prove a wreck, he need not prove what caused it and it will be presumed that it was some act of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... L. R. 1304, 1305.) ... Peterson, ... Anderson & Bowen and Milton E. Zener, for Respondent ... Exclamations ... held excessive.-- O'Donnell v. American Ref. Co. , ... 41 A.D. 307, 58 N.Y.S. 640 ... [ a ] $ 8,000.00.-- Di ... , 75 ... Wash. 500, 135 P. 226; Anderson v. American Sash & Door ... Co. , (Kansas City Ct. of App. Mo.) 182 S.W. 819 ... $ ... ...
-
Bartlett v. Pontiac Realty Co.
...and not of the trial court, to accept or reject any part or all of defendant's evidence, and to determine its force and effect. Anderson v. Door Co., 182 S.W. 819; Gannon v. Cas. Co., 145 Mo. 502; Bond v. R., 288 S.W. 777; Warren v. Tel. Co., 196 S.W. 1030; Whitlow v. R. R., 282 S.W. 525; a......
-
Nelson v. C. Heinz Stove Co.
... ... Printing Co., 199 S.W. 994; State v ... Allen, 289 S.W. 583; Anderson v. Door Co., 182 ... S.W. 819. (b) And if the defendant does not, by ... Rueter v. Terminal ... Railroad, 261 S.W. 713; American Brewing Assn. v ... Talbot, 141 Mo. 674; State ex rel. Lusk v ... ...
-
Nelson v. C. Heinz Stove Co.
...Iron Works, 259 S.W. 811; Taul v. Saddlery Co., 229 S.W. 420; Ash v. Printing Co., 199 S.W. 994; State v. Allen, 289 S.W. 583; Anderson v. Door Co., 182 S.W. 819. (b) And if the defendant does not, by adequate evidence, show the real cause of the unusual happening, and that it was not negli......