Berneardt v. Perry

Decision Date19 December 1918
Citation276 Mo. 612,208 S.W. 462
PartiesBERNEARDT et al. v. PERRY.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

Suit by Emma Bernhardt and husband against Lewis Perry. Upon sustaining demurrer to the petition, the plaintiffs declined to plead further, and judgment was entered for defendant, from which the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiffs brought this suit in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis against the defendant to recover $15,000 damages done the female plaintiff for personal injuries alleged to have been negligently inflicted upon the plaintiff George Bernhardt, her husband.

The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition, which was by the circuit court sustained; and, the plaintiffs declining to plead further, judgment was entered for the defendant, and in due time and in proper form the plaintiffs appealed the cause to this court.

The petition was as follows:

"Plaintiffs state that at all times hereinafter mentioned, and at the time of the filing of this petition, they were inhabitants and residents of the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, and at all such times were lawfully married and living together as husband and wife; that at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was the owner and holder of the record title of and to certain real estate being, lying, and situate in said city and state, and being improved with a ____ story apartment building thereon, said property being described as follows: Lot 18 and the western 22 feet of lot 17 of Fullerton's subdivision, in city block 4576, fronting together 65 feet upon the Westminster place, by a depth of 144 feet 11 3/8 inches to an alley.

"For cause of action plaintiffs state that on or about the 1st day of February, 1907, defendant herein employed and hired the said George Bernhardt as janitor, fireman, and engineer at and for said apartment building aforesaid, and that, among other things, it was his duty to clean the fire box, boiler, and other portions of the heating apparatus of said apartment building and to care for and tend same; that shortly after being employed or hired, as aforesaid, to wit, within about two weeks thereafter, it became necessary for the said Bernhardt, in the discharge of his duties in and about said building, to clean the boiler and heating apparatus of said building, and that, in order to promptly perform said duty with the appliances at hand which had been furnished to him by the said defendant, it became necessary for him to attach a' hose, pipe, or other similar appliance to said boiler or heating apparatus, and upon turning the hot water or the steam from the same into said hose, pipe, or similar appliance, for the purpose of carrying the same off from said boiler or heating apparatus, the said hose, pipe, or other similar appliance, by reason of its broken, defective, worn-out, rotten, decayed, and insecure and unfit condition, broke or bursted or exploded at or near its jointure with said heating apparatus or said boiler, causing the steam or boiling water of said boiler or heating apparatus to be thrown and hurled in all directions, and on and upon the said Bernhardt, and to cause the said Bernhardt to become temporarily blinded, which said explosion and bursting of said hose, pipe, or other similar appliance inflicted upon said Bernhardt injuries hereinafter more particularly described as follows:

"The said Bernhardt's lower limbs, abdomen, and other parts of his body came into contact with and remained for several minutes in the scalding, boiling water, by reason whereof he was confined to his bed continually for a period of one year or more, during all of which time and for many a week he was compelled to be wrapped and kept in cotton and other bandages; that for a long period of time he suffered indescribable and excruciating pain; that portions of the flesh on his lower limbs and other parts of his body became seared and pealed off and broke out into open and running sores, giving and causing him additional pain and suffering; that said George Bernhardt suffered great loss of sleep for days and weeks at a time, so that, owing to the great and constant pain he was in, it became necessary for weeks after receiving his injuries as aforesaid to administer to him morphine and other opiates in order to induce sleep, rest, and quiet; that for a long time immediately following said injuries said George Bernhardt suffered great mental agony lest he would not survive said injuries, and was in constant fear and apprehension lest blood poisoning would set in in the injured and scalded parts of his body as aforesaid; that upon being able to leave his bed after a period of about one year, as aforesaid, said George Bernhardt was able to move about his room and his house for several weeks only by means of crutches, or in an armchair, which crutches and chair he was compelled to use for a long period of time; that upon being able to discard said crutches he was unable to get around the house or to walk with the use and assistance of a cane, and then only for short periods of time; that ever since receiving said injuries and up to the time of the filing of this petition said George Bernhardt has been unable to bend or raise his right lower limb or to have any use thereof without great pain, and has been unable to walk up or down stairs or even for a short distance without great pain and suffering; that the nerves in his said lower limbs have become hardened thereby, causing him additional pain and greatly impeding his movement; that it was necessary for him to be treated at various hospitals in the city of St. Louis for a long period of time immediately following the time hereinafter mentioned; that up to the time of this petition his left lower limb is still an open and running sore, causing him great pain and anguish; that he will for a long time suffer great pain and agony, and will never be able to follow his usual occupation of working as a janitor, fireman, or engineer in and around apartment buildings, and will for all time to come be permanently disabled from engaging in any and all kinds of work or occupation whatsoever.

"That by reason of said injuries the vital organs of his body have become affected, and their usefulness greatly impaired, and his normal expectancy in life greatly diminished.

"That the injuries inflicted upon the said Bernhardt as aforesaid were caused and brought about by the negligence of the defendant in this, to wit:

"First. That the defendant, wholly disregarding his duty to furnish to said Bernhardt a reasonably safe and secure and proper appliance with which to work in and about his duties as aforesaid, did furnish to said Bernhardt a hose pipe, or other similar appliance which at the time aforesaid was in a decayed, rotten, defective, insecure, worn-out, and unfit condition for which said Bernhardt was to use the same, in and about the discharge of his duties as aforesaid, the defendant at the time knowing, or by the exercise of ordinary care on his part should have known, of such defective or otherwise unfit condition of said appliance for the purpose for which it was to be used.

"Second. That the defendant, wholly disregarding his duties to said Bernhardt, failed to warn said Bernhardt of the danger he was in in using in and about the discharge of his duties as aforesaid said hose, pipe or similar appliance which at the time was in a decayed, defective, rotten, insecure, worn-out or otherwise unfit condition, and which condition of said appliance was known, or by the exercise of ordinary care on his part should have been known, to the defendant in ample time to have warned said Bernhardt of said danger in the use thereof.

"Third. That the defendant, wholly disregarding his duty to the said Bernhardt to furnish him with a reasonably safe, secure, and properly lighted place in which to work while in and about the discharge of his duties as aforesaid, did require said Bernhardt to discharge his said duties in a place which was narrow and ill-lighted, and which place had been allowed by the defendant to become filled with ashes and coal so as to obstruct the ordinary and proper ingress and egress from immediately in front of and around the said boiler or heating apparatus, and which said ill-lighted and obstructed condition of said place wherein said Bernhardt was working was well known to defendant, or by the exercise of ordinary care on his part would have become known to him.

"That by reason of such ill-lighted and improper condition of said room or place wherein the said Bernhardt was at the time aforesaid it was impossible for him to escape from the same in order to have lessened the danger he was in or in order to extricate himself therefrom.

"That by reason of said injuries inflicted upon said Bernhardt as aforesaid, and as a direct result thereof, plaintiff Emma Bernhardt has been damaged in the following particulars, to wit:

"She has lost a great amount of sleep in worry and anxiety on account of the physical condition of her said husband and in watching over him and caring for him; she has been caused great worry and anxiety by reason of the fact that her husband is incapacitated so that he will never be able to engage in his usual occupation; that she has suffered on account of the inability of her said husband to have and enjoy the ordinary and customary use of his feet and limbs and other vital parts and organs of his body, and that she will suffer in the future in this respect; that by reason of the physical and mental condition of he's said husband she has suffered in mind and body and her health and strength impaired and her nervous system greatly shocked and undermined; that she has been denied care, protection, consideration, companionship, aid, and society of her said husband which he would have rendered to her had such injuries not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Deshotel v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 31, 1958
    ......515, 77 N.W.2d 651; Stout v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 1913, 172 Mo.App. 113, [50 Cal.2d 666] 157 S.W. 1019; Bernhardt v. Perry, 1918, 276 Mo. 612, 208 S.W. 462, 13 A.L.R. 1320; Larocca v. American Chain & Cable Co., App.Div.1952, 23 N.J.Super. 195, 92 A.2d 811, 812-814; ......
  • Montgomery v. Stephan, 16
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • February 25, 1960
    ...West, 80 Ga.App. 481, 56 S.E.2d 299 (evenly divided); Burk v. Anderson, 232 Ind. 77, 109 N.E.2d 407; Bernhardt v. Perry, 276 Mo. 612, 632, 208 S.W. 462, 13 A.L.R. 1320 (dissenting opinion); Landwehr v. Barbas, 241 App.Div. 769, 270 N.Y.S. 534 (dissenting opinion), affirmed 270 N.Y. 537, 200......
  • Hoffman v. Dautel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 25, 1964
    ...possibility of double recovery is real. The Missouri court, in discussing the prospect of double recovery in Bernhardt v. Perry [1919] 276 Mo. 612, 208 S.W. 462, 13 A.L.R. 1320 [error dismissed 254 U.S. 662, 65 L.Ed. 464], 41 S.Ct. 63, '* * * In the first place, her husband would recover fu......
  • Acuff v. Schmit
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 18, 1956
    ...would be to allow double recovery for the same wrong. These courts concede the right of the husband to recover. Bernhardt v. Perry, 276 Mo. 612, 208 S.W. 462, 13 A.L.R. 1320; Nickel v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., 269 Wis. 647, 70 N.W.2d 205. To so hold is to say that the wife has no right......
  • 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