Anderson v. Electric Park Amusement Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1910
• Citation: 125 S.W. 1196,141 Mo.App. 576
• Parties: JOS. A. ANDERSON, Respondent, v. ELECTRIC PARK AMUSEMENT COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

125 S.W. 1196

141 Mo.App. 576

JOS. A. ANDERSON, Respondent, v. ELECTRIC PARK AMUSEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

February 21, 1910

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. James H. Slover, Judge.

Cause reversed and remanded.

Dana Cowherd & Ingraham for appellants.

(1) If plaintiff's testimony, to the effect that he slipped and his hand was thrust down into the knives while the machine was not moving, be uncorroborated and be further contrary to all the physical facts appearing in evidence, it will not support a verdict. Hayden v. Railroad, 124 Mo. 573; Kelsey v. Railroad, 129 Mo. 373; Huggart v Railroad, 134 Mo. 679; Payne v. Railroad, 136 Mo. 579; Phippin v. Railroad, 196 Mo. 343; Doerr v. Brewing Assn., 176 Mo. 556; George v. Mfg Co., 159 Mo. 339. (2) If the undisputed evidence, and plaintiff's admissions show that it was a part of plaintiff's duty to keep the floor mopped, and that he failed to do it, and that the slippery condition thus resulted and that this was a part of the producing cause of the injury, then under all rules and definitions of the law of contributory negligence, plaintiff cannot recover. This for the simple reason that plaintiff contributed, by his own fault, to his injury. Huss v. Bakery Co., 210 Mo 53; Richardson v. Mesker, 171 Mo. 666; Anderson v. Box Co., 103 Mo.App. 382. (3) The duty of defendant was to use ordinary care to furnish plaintiff with place and appliances in reasonably safe condition. The instruction stated a much more rigorous rule. It required defendant to furnish appliances in absolutely good repair. This was error. As to the care required in furnishing a reasonably safe place, tools and appliances, see Beebe v. Transit Co., 206 Mo. 437; Goransson v. Mfg. Co., 186 Mo. 306; Dunn v. Nicholson, 117 Mo.App. 377. (4) As to withdrawing an issue from the jury, see Senn v. Railroad, 124 Mo. 630; holding it to be error for the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence of contributory negligence on plaintiff's part when he saw the danger. Chouteau v. Steamboat, 12 Mo. 393; Sawyer v. Railroad, 37 Mo. 263; Clark v. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 70; Brounlaw v. Wollard, 66 Mo.App. 642; Crews v. Lackland, 67 Mo. 621. (5) That it is error to assume by instruction facts not in evidence or to single out particular facts or to omit essential facts or to submit propositions not applicable to the facts or not supported by the evidence, is so elemental that it scarcely requires the citation of authorities to support it. Willis v. Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co., 111 Mo.App. 580; Chambers v. Railroad, 111 Mo.App. 609; Pim v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 713; Flynn v. Transit Co., 113 Mo.App. 185; Boyce v. Railroad, 120 Mo.App. 168; Gibler v. Railroad, 129 Mo. 93; Holland v. Vinson, 124 Mo.App. 417; Asher v. Franklin, 121 Mo.App. 29; Wann v. Scullin, 210 Mo. 486; Baker v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 551; Wehringer v. Ahlmeyer, 23 Mo.App. 277; Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 609.

John L. Wheeler and John C. Nipp for respondent.

(1) A demurrer to the evidence admits every fact proved, or which may be inferred from the testimony to be true, and should never be sustained unless the evidence, when thus considered fails to prove some essential fact of the plaintiff's case. McNichol v. Express Co., 12 Mo.App. 401; Noenger v. Vogt, 88 Mo. 589; Harris v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 233; Donohue v. Railroad, 91 Mo. 357; Wilkerson v. Railroad, 26 Mo.App. 144; Jackson v. Insurance Co., 27 Mo.App. 62; Harriman v. Railroad, 27 Mo.App. 435; Rine v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 228; Herboth v. Gall, 47 Mo.App. 255; Franke v. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 516; Davies v. Baldwin, 66 Mo.App. 577; Barth v. Railroad, 142 Mo. 535; Young v. Webb City, 150 Mo. 333; Creighton v. M. W. A., 90 Mo.App. 378; Holman v. Mining Co., 102 Mo.App. 423; Butts v. Bank, 99 Mo.App. 168; Mooreman v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 711; Von Trebia v. Gaslight Co., 209 Mo. 648; Mooreman v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 711; Moore v. Transit Co., 194 Mo. 1; Hach v. Railroad, 208 Mo. 581; Koerner v. Car Co., 209 Mo. 141; Benseik v. Transit Co., 125 Mo.App. 121; Steube v. Foundry Co., 85 Mo.App. 640; Deitring v. Transit Co., 109 Mo.App. 524; Phelan v. Paving Co., 115 Mo.App. 423; Robertson v. Construction Co., 115 Mo.App. 456; Knorpp v. Waggner, 195 Mo. 637; Charlton v. Railroad, 200 Mo. 413; Commission Co. v. Bank, 130 Mo.App. 464; Hall v. Compton, 130 Mo.App. 675; Schloemer v. Transit Co., 204 Mo. 99; Gilpin v. Railroad, 197 Mo. 319; Forbes v. Dunnavant, 198 Mo. 193; Dunphy v. Stock Yards Co., 118 Mo.App. 506; Furgeson v. Railroad, 123 Mo.App. 590; Fassbinder v. Railroad, 126 Mo.App. 563; Hall v. Compton, 130 Mo.App. 675; Hawk v. Railroad, 130 Mo.App. 658; Jordan v. Transit Co., 202 Mo. 418; Bower v. Railroad, 95 Mo. 268; Weber v. Cable Co., 100 Mo. 194; Oglesby v. Railroad, 177 Mo. 272. (2) It was not shown by plaintiff's admissions and the undisputed evidence, as claimed by defendants, that it was one of the duties of the plaintiff to keep the floor mopped, and that his failure so to do was a contributing cause of the accident. (3) The evidence on such questions was conflicting, and the jury, upon consideration of such conflicting evidence having found for the plaintiff, its verdict, was in effect, a finding that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, and such verdict should not be disturbed. Conroy v. Iron Works, 62 Mo. 35; McMillen v. Press Brick Works, 6 Mo.App. 434; Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 13; Raber v. Tower, 11 Mo.App. 199; Harriman v. Railroad, 27 Mo.App. 435; Hamilton v. Mining Co., 108 Mo. 364; Blanton v. Dold, 109 Mo. 64; Moore v. Wire Works Co., 55 Mo.App. 491; Nicholds v. Glass Co., 27 S.W. 516; Nicholds v. Glass Co., 126 Mo. 55; Halliburton v. Railroad, 58 Mo.App. 27; Monahan v. Coal Co., 58 Mo.App. 68; Benham v. Taylor, 66 Mo.App. 308; Compton v. Railroad, 82 Mo.App. 175; De Vore v. Railroad, 86 Mo.App. 429; Nash v. Dowling, 93 Mo.App. 156; Franklin v. Railroad, 97 Mo.App. 473; Adolff v. Baking Co., 100 Mo.App. 199; Mueller v. Shoe Co., 109 Mo.App. 506; Stafford v. Adams, 113 Mo.App. 717; Hollweg v. Telephone Co., 195 Mo. 149; Kramer v. Manufacturing Co., 122 Mo.App. 247; McGinnis v. Printing Co., 122 Mo.App. 227; Garaci v. Construction Co., 124 Mo.App. 709; Huston v. Railroad, 129 Mo.App. 576; Wiley v. Gas Light Co., 111 S.W. 1185; Cole v. Lead Co., 130 Mo.App. 253. (4) The jury has found in favor of the plaintiff, and a verdict sustained by evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. Schaff v. Peters, 111 Mo.App. 447; Brockman Com. Co. v. Kilbourne, 111 Mo.App. 542; Morgan v. Keller, 194 Mo. 663; Levels v. Railroad, 196 Mo. 606; Harris v. Scheffel, 117 Mo.App. 514; Wood v. Railroad, 119 Mo.App. 78; Carp v. Assur. Co., 99 S.W. 523; Corum v. Railroad, 129 Mo.App. 494; Cobb v. Holloway, 129 Mo.App. 212; Wayland v. Johnson, 130 Mo.App. 80. (5) Where the verdict is in favor of plaintiff, the appellate court will assume that the evidence given in behalf of plaintiff is true. Peck v. Traction Co., 110 S.W. 659; Von Trebra v. Gaslight Co., 209 Mo. 648. (6) A verdict based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. Bray v. Riggs, 110 Mo.App. 630; Smith v. Telephone Co., 113 Mo.App. 429; Hill v. Davis, 116 Mo.App. 697; Bank v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 248; Laub v. Railroad, 118 Mo.App. 488; Dunphy v. Stock Yards Co., 118 Mo.App. 506; Betz v. Telephone Co., 121 Mo.App. 473; Bush v. Brandecker, 123 Mo.App. 470; Abney v. Marshall, 124 Mo.App. 483; Fulton v. Railroad, 125 Mo.App. 239; Scherer v. Hill, 125 Mo.App. 375; Zinc Co. v. Amsden Leonard & Co., 125 Mo.App. 512; Morris v. Williams, 111 S.W. 607; Landrum v. Railroad, 112 S.W. 1000. (7) A verdict based on conflicting evidence will not be interfered with on appeal, though it may appear that the preponderance of the evidence is against it. Bond v. Railroad, 110 Mo.App. 131; Flynn v. Transit Co., 113 Mo.App. 185; Harrison v. Lakenan, 189 Mo. 581; Colyer v. Railroad, 113 Mo.App. 457; Nephler v. Woodward, 200 Mo. 179; Dowling v. Wheeler, 117 Mo.App. 169; McNulty v. Railroad, 203 Mo. 475; Garner v. Railroad, 128 Mo.App. 401. (8) Plaintiff's instruction did not impose on defendant too great a degree of care. Burdoin v. Trenton, 116 Mo. 358; Jerowitz v. Kansas City, 104 Mo.App. 202. (9) Instructions must be construed together as a whole, and if when so considered they properly state the law, it is sufficient. Harrington v. Sedalia, 98 Mo. 583; Sawyer v. Drake, 34 Mo.App. 472; Kinney v. Springfield, 35 Mo.App. 97; Fletcher v. Milburn Mfg. Co., 35 Mo.App. 321; Blaydes v. Adams, 35 Mo.App. 526; Wallich v. Morgan, 39 Mo.App. 469; Burdoin v. Trenton, 116 Mo. 358; Pike v. Eddie, 53 Mo.App. 505; Meade v. Railroad, 68 Mo.App. 92; Bowring v. Wabash, 90 Mo.App. 324; McKinstery v. Transit Co., 82 S.W. 1108; Shanahan v. Transit Co., 109 Mo.App. 228; Railroad v. Stewart, 201 Mo. 491; Scippell v. Gaslight Co., 125 Mo.App. 81; Bell v. Railroad, 125 Mo.App. 660; Gibler v. Railroad Co., 203 Mo. 208. (10) Where the charge as a whole correctly expresses the law, defects in particular instructions are not grounds for reversal, where the jury were not misled. Neal v. McKinstery, 7 Mo. 128; William v. Vanmeter, 8 Mo. 339; Pond v. Wyman, 15 Mo. 175; Knox v. Hunt, 18 Mo. 174; McKeon v. Railroad, 43 Mo. 405; Marshall v. Insurance Co., 43 Mo. 586; Harrison v. Insurance Co., 43 Mo. 590; Noble v. Blount, 77 Mo. 235; Brooks v. Railroad, 35 Mo.App. 571; Railroad v. Schoennen, 37 Mo.App. 612; Wallich v. Morgan, 39 Mo.App. 469; Wetzel v. Waggoner, 41 Mo.App. 509; McNichols v. Nelson, 45 Mo.App. 446; Shortell v. St. Joseph, 104 Mo. 114; Minter v. Hdw. Co., 50 Mo.App. 177; Hunt v. Hunter, 52 Mo.App. 263; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547; Orcutt v. Century Bldg., 112 S.W. 532; Brown v. Printing Co., 112 S.W. 462. (11) Where an instruction which was given is erroneous when taken...