Boyd v. Logan Jones Dry Goods Co.

• Citation: 104 S.W.2d 348,340 Mo. 1100
• Decision Date: 21 April 1937
• Docket Number: 34354
• Parties: Ida Boyd, Appellant, v. Logan Jones Dry Goods Company, a Corporation
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

104 S.W.2d 348

340 Mo. 1100

Ida Boyd, Appellant, v. Logan Jones Dry Goods Company, a Corporation

No. 34354

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 21, 1937

Reported at 340 Mo. 1100 at 1108.

Original Opinion of April 21, 1937, Reported at 340 Mo. 1100. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

OPINION

Hyde, C.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Plaintiff's motion for rehearing states as its ground that a question decisive of the case, and duly submitted, has been overlooked; namely, that evidence of previous accidents at the same place is admissible not merely to show knowledge of a defective condition but to show also that the place was dangerous. We think it advisable to clarify this matter. The opinion does not mean that such evidence is inadmissible or that it cannot be considered on that issue; but it does mean that, in this case, it would not make sufficient substantial evidence to make a jury case on that issue, and it holds that such evidence is not alone sufficient to prove negligent construction or defective condition. We hold that, even if such evidence as was offered be considered, nevertheless, all the evidence taken together viewed most favorably with respect to plaintiff's case, fails to show any defective condition or a construction that was not reasonably safe. Such evidence is only circumstantial evidence, at most, and the mere fact that evidence of certain circumstances is admissible does not mean that such evidence alone amounts to sufficient substantial evidence to make a jury case.

In the United States Supreme Court case cited by plaintiff, District of Columbia v. Armes, 107 U.S. 519, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618, there were three steps in the middle of a sidewalk, which, at a distance of twelve feet, paralleled the curb, and which caused an abrupt descent of about two feet for a considerable distance in all of that part of the sidewalk more than twelve feet from the curb. That was very unusual sidewalk construction. Nothing was put there to guard or warn pedestrians and there was no mention of any light there at night, when the plaintiff in that case fell. The court said that other accidents at this place were "circumstances which, with other evidence, tended to show the dangerous character of the sidewalk in its unguarded condition;" and that "they also tended to show that the dangerous character of the locality was brought to the attention of the city authorities." It is clear that, even without evidence of previous accidents, there was substantial evidence of an unsafe condition of the sidewalk.

This case is cited by this court in Charlton v St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 200 Mo. 413, 98 S.W. 529, where the negligence alleged was erecting and maintaining a water crane too close to a railroad track. This court held that it was proper to show that the water crane previously struck a man on a car, because "it tended to show the nearness of the crane and its appendages, and,...