Bell v. S. S. Kresge Co., 24988.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 24988.,24988. |
| Citation | Bell v. S. S. Kresge Co., 129 S.W.2d 932 (Mo. App. 1939) |
| Parties | BELL v. S. S. KRESGE CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Harry F. Russell, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Sue Bell against the S. S. Kresge Company for personal injuries caused by swallowing pieces of glass in soup purchased by plaintiff in defendant's restaurant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wayne Ely, of St. Louis (Leahy, Walther, Hecker & Ely, of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul M. Patton and H. P. Tudor, both of St. Louis (William H. Tombrink, of St. Louis, of counsel), for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This action is for the recovery of $750 as damages for personal injuries. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace. Plaintiff in her statement filed with the justice alleges that on March 16, 1936, while a patron in defendant's restaurant, she purchased of defendant a bowl of soup, represented by defendant to be pure and wholesome and fit for human consumption, and that, relying on said representations, and while eating said soup, she bit down upon and swallowed pieces of glass negligently caused, suffered and permitted to be in said bowl of soup, and that as a result thereof she sustained serious, painful and permanent injuries and nervous shock, and lost the earnings of her labor and incurred medical expenses in the treatment of said injuries.
There was a judgment for plaintiff in the justice court, from which defendant appealed to the circuit court. The trial in the circuit court, with a jury, resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $750. Judgment was given accordingly, and defendant appeals.
Error is assigned by defendant here for the refusal of its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence.
The assignment is put on the grounds (1) that plaintiff's action is based on negligence, and there is no showing that defendant was negligent, and (2) that there was no showing that plaintiff swallowed any glass and no showing of a causal connection between the glass in the soup and the condition of which plaintiff complains.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
Doris Bell testified, for plaintiff, as follows:
Dr. Roy A. Walther testified, for plaintiff, as follows:
Beulah Schumacher testified, for defendant, as follows:
Florence Wilcox testified, for defendant, as follows:
A report of an examination made by Dr. William J. Gallagher on May 20, 1936, was read in evidence. The report recites inter alia as follows: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Turner v. Central Hardware Co.
... ... Hall, 201 S.W. 945; Moore v. Koger, 113 Mo.App ... 423, 87 S.W. 602; Bell v. S.S. Kresge Co., 129 ... S.W.2d 932; Carter v. St. Louis Dairy Co., 139 ... S.W.2d 1025 ... ...
-
Waterous v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co.
... ... Co. v. Robinson, 129 S.W.2d 192; Williams v ... Guyot, 126 S.W.2d 1137; Belle v. S.S. Kresge ... Co., 129 S.W.2d 932; Mitchell v. Dyer, 57 ... S.W.2d 1082; Rouchene v. Gamble Const. Co., ... ...
-
Gibbs v. General Motors Corp.
...Products Co., 133 S.W.2d 701; Degouveia v. Lee, 100 S.W.2d 336, 231 Mo.App. 447; Nemela v. Coca-Cola Co., 104 S.W.2d 773; Bell v. Kresge, 129 S.W.2d 932; Flies Buick, 196 Wis. 196, 218 N.W. 855; Egan Chevrolet Co. v. Bruner, 102 F.2d 373; Hudson v. Moonier, 94 F.2d 132; Conner v. Atlantic &......
-
Moore v. Glasgow
...in which such causal connection reasonably may be inferred without the opinion of a medical expert [e. g., Bell v. S. S. Kresge Co., Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 932, 935(4)]; but it would seem that whether the accident of September 27, 1958, caused, or contributed to cause, the back episodes of Jun......