Andrus v. Bradley-Alderson Co.

Decision Date05 March 1906
Citation93 S.W. 872,117 Mo. App. 322
PartiesANDRUS v. BRADLEY-ALDERSON CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. B. Teasdale, Judge.

Action by De Kalb Andrus against the Bradley-Alderson Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Warner, Dean, McLeod, Holden & Timmonds, for appellant. Reed, Yates, Mastin & Howell, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff, who was an employé of defendant, was injured while in performance of his duties. The injury was caused by his falling down an elevator shaft. He sued the defendant for the damage received, and prevailed in the trial court.

It appears that the M. Rumely Company owned a large building in Kansas City, consisting of six stories and a basement; that it reserved to its own use the basement and the first and sixth floors; and that it rented the remaining rooms and floors to various parties, among them this defendant, who occupied the entire third floor, in which it stored buggies and wagons. The operative part of the written contract of renting was that "we will allow you the use of one entire floor, 66 by 117, together with elevator service, use of shipping dock, also track for loading and unloading cars, at rate of $100 per month." There was a large elevator in use, running from basement to top floor, and it was used in common by the Rumely Company and the various tenants, including the defendant. The elevator structure included gates on each floor, which could be caused to raise as the elevator proper would come to a floor, and would close as it passed on. The structure holding these, and in which they worked, was composed of four posts extending from floor to ceiling, one at each corner of the shaft. A gate was at each end of the shaft (it being longer than wide) and they were held in place by grooves in the posts, in which they worked up and down. The post at the southeast corner, by neglect or oversight, was not fastened firmly to the floor when the building was erected. This condition, while not such as to be noticed by casual observation, could have been discovered by inspection. It had not been seen by defendant, or observed by any of its servants, including the plaintiff. The Rumely Company's servants operated the elevator exclusively. Defendant's principal place of business was not at this building, but it sent plaintiff and other employés almost daily to the building to get out buggies that were wanted. On the day plaintiff fell into the shaft, he was in the act of moving some buggies, or parts of them, on a truck and it became necessary for him to make a turn close to the southeast corner post. The space for a turn was limited on account of the buggies being near, and as plaintiff was in the act of making the turn, his back or shoulder pressed against the post and gate, and the post, being insecure at the foot, moved sufficient to cause the gate to come out of the groove, and swing in over the shaft, when plaintiff, thus left without support, lost his balance and fell 30 feet below. The foregoing is not so complete a statement of the facts connected with the cause of plaintiff's falling as made by the parties, but it will suffice for a full understanding of the law, which we deem applicable to the case.

The real questions for decision on the foregoing facts are: Who was in control of the elevator? And whose duty was it to keep it in such repair as to be reasonably safe? It is familiar law that a landlord is under no obligation to repair leased premises unless he has contracted to do so, and he is, therefore, not liable for injuries resulting from nonrepair. In such instances, the tenant would be liable to all those to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Lambert v. Jones
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1936
    ...misleading, confusing or conflicting and are based upon the evidence. Authorities under Points (1), (2), and (3). Hyde, C. Ferguson and Bradley, CC., OPINION HYDE, Commissioner. This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff obtained a verdict for $ 10,000 against all three ......
  • Rose v. Missouri Dist. Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Noviembre 1931
    ...must be measured by his control and right to repair. 36 C. J. 246, 247; Dierkes v. Dry Goods Co., 210 Mo.App. 149; Andrus v. Bradley-Alderson Co., 117 Mo.App. 322; McGinley v. Alliance Trust Co., 168 Mo. Marcheck v. Klute, 133 Mo.App. 280; Bender v. Weber, 250 Mo. 563. (c) The evidence conc......
  • Miller v. Geeser
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 1915
    ... ...           [193 ... Mo.App. 19] McGinley v. Alliance Trust Co., supra, ... Marcheck v. Klute, supra, Andrus v. Bradley-Alderson Co., 117 ... Mo.App. 322, 93 S.W. 872; Collins v. Tootle Estate, ... 156 Mo.App. 221, 137 S.W. 273, are cited by Judge ... ...
  • Dailey v. Vogl
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 15 Febrero 1915
    ... ... 569; Peterson v. Smart, 70 Mo. 34; Ward v ... Fagin, 101 Mo. 669, 14 S.W. 738; Glenn v. Hill, ... 210 Mo. 291, 109 S.W. 27; Andrus v. Bradley Alderson ... Co., 117 Mo.App. 322, 325, 93 S.W. 872; Coats v ... Merriweather, 144 Mo.App. 89, 91; Roberts v ... Cottey, 100 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT