Boesel v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Citation | 260 Mo. 463,169 S.W. 110 |
Decision Date | 02 July 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 16152.,16152. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Parties | BOESEL v. WELLS FARGO & CO. |
Plaintiff, a girl 14 years, 8½ months old, testified that she was employed by defendant's foreman to answer the telephone in defendant's express barn and notify him when wanted, using a freight elevator to do so; that, being required to find the foreman, she started the elevator, partially sitting on a guard bar with one leg over the bar; that she knew there was a space between the elevator floor and the edge of the second floor of the building; and that she did not remove her leg from the bar because it looked as though the space would be wide enough for her leg to go through without hitting or touching the floor. She was mistaken in this, and her leg was caught and injured. Held, that, notwithstanding plaintiff's youth, she appreciated the condition, and deliberately took the chance that the space was sufficiently large for her leg to pass through, and was therefore negligent as a matter of law.
4. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 96)—INJURIES TO SERVANT—CHILDREN — CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT AND INJURY— "EMPLOYED TO OPERATE ELEVATOR."
Where plaintiff, a girl 14 years, 8½ months old, was employed temporarily to answer the telephone in an express barn and was injured while operating a freight elevator which she was permitted to use to communicate with the foreman, she was not employed to operate the elevator within Rev. St. 1909, § 1723, providing that no child under the age of 16 shall be employed to operate or assist in operating an elevator; and there was no causal connection between her employment and the use of the elevator at the time of her injury, so as to entitle her to enforce an alleged civil liability for her injuries, based on defendant's alleged violation of the statute in employing her.
In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; W. B. Homer, Judge.
Action by Edith E. Boesel, an infant, by Adam Boesel, her next friend, against Wells Fargo & Co. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This case coming into banc from Division 2, we adopt with some minor emendations, the statement thereof made by ROY, C., who wrote the opinion in Division. It runs thus:
Suit for damages for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.
The defendant had its barn at the northwest corner of Johnson and Spruce streets in St. Louis. It fronts south on Spruce. It is 75 feet front by 175 feet deep. The office is on the first floor in the southeast corner. That floor is used for vehicles. At the north end of the building is a freight elevator about 13 feet by 9. It is operated by wire cables. Across the south opening to the elevator is a wooden removable bar about 3 feet high. Near the elevator begins a chute by which horses are taken to and from the stalls on the second floor. Hay and other feed is kept on the third floor. Near the foot of the chute is an extension bell from the telephone, which rings whenever there is a call on the telephone. As the elevator passes through the second floor there is a space of about two inches between the edge of the elevator and the side of the opening in the floor. John Hodgson was the foreman in charge of the barn.
The plaintiff lived with her parents in the property adjoining the barn on the west. The plaintiff was injured on August 19, 1909, and was 15 years old in December following. The injury occurred between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon. Plaintiff testified as to what occurred between her and Hodgson, and as to how the injury occurred, as follows:
On cross-examination the plaintiff testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pearson v. Kansas City
...209 S.W. 931; State ex rel. Cox v. Trimble, 312 Mo. 322, 279 S.W. 60; Bonanomi v. Purcell, 287 Mo. 450, 230 S.W. 120; Boesel v. Wells Fargo & Co., 260 Mo. 478, 169 S.W. 110. Manard & Schwimmer and Carroll W. Berry for (1) The court did not err in overruling appellant's demurrer offered at t......
-
Hosford v. Clark
...and Dorlac v. Bueneman, Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 108. It is so ordered. RUARK, P. J., and McDOWELL, J., concur. 1 Boesel v. Wells Fargo & Co., 260 Mo. 463, 169 S.W. 110, 113-114(3); McGee v. Wabash R. Co., 214 Mo. 530, 114 S.W. 33, 37(15); Spillane v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 135 Mo. 414, 37 S.W. ......
-
Rose v. Telegraph Co., 29277.
...Plaintiff, in his cross-examination, confessed himself to be guilty of contributory negligence which barred his recovery. Boesel v. Wells-Fargo & Co., 260 Mo. 463; Cash v. Sonken-Calamba Co., 17 S.W. (2d) 929; Shelton v. Light, Power & Ice Co., 258 Mo. 534; Consolidated Gas & Electric Co. v......
-
Pearson v. Kansas City
...... Trimble, 312 Mo. 322, 279 S.W. 60; Bonanomi v. Purcell, 287 Mo. 450, 230 S.W. 120; Boesel v. Wells. Fargo & Co., 260 Mo. 478, 169 S.W. 110. . . Manard & Schwimmer ......