Brown v. General Motors Corporation
| Decision Date | 25 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 18546.,18546. |
| Citation | 95 S.W.2d 654 |
| Parties | BROWN v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Ben Terte, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Lee Brown against the General Motors Corporation. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Allan R. Browne, Jesse I. Moritz, and Grover, Browne & Ennis, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
Miller, Gumbiner & Sheffrey and Harding, Murphy & Tucker, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
CAMPBELL, Commissioner.
Plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages caused by an alleged assault and battery. The defendant's general demurrer to plaintiff's second amended petition was sustained. The plaintiff declined to plead further, and the court entered judgment dismissing the cause. The defendant has appealed.
From the briefs it appears that the demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the petition stated only legal conclusions. The petition alleged that defendant was a corporation and that while plaintiff was "in front of a Chevrolet plant of the defendant in Leeds, Missouri, defendant, its agents, servants and employees, while in the scope of their employment and on their employer's business, in furtherance of its business and interests, willfully, intentionally, wantonly, and designedly assaulted and battered, beat and struck, and otherwise assaulted and battered plaintiff, to his great damage as hereinafter set forth." The petition described the injuries caused by the alleged wrong, and prayed for a recovery of both actual and punitive damages. The petition covers almost three pages of the printed record and is replete with allegations of legal conclusions. However, if within the four corners of the petition facts sufficient to state a cause of action are alleged, then we must disregard the averments of legal conclusions and hold that the petition is sufficient. Corley v. Montgomery (Mo. App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 283. When the averments of legal conclusions are put aside there remains in the petition the following allegations of fact: That defendant was a corporation, and that defendant intentionally and wantonly assaulted and beat the plaintiff.
The defendant, a corporation, could act only through its agents and employees. The allegation that defendant struck and beat the plaintiff was sufficient to allow proof that the individuals who assaulted and beat the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E. C. Robinson Lumber Co. v. Lowrey
...518, 521-522(1). See and compare also Gayle v. Missouri Car & Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 427, 76 S.W. 987, 993(5); Brown v. General Motors Corporation, Mo.App., 95 S.W.2d 654, 655(2); annotation 4 A.L.R.2d 292, 302. And, observe that, in Magidson v. Stern, supra, where mechanics' lien claimants r......
-
Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State of Missouri
...forth in the pleading before it was amended. See Henry v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R., 332 Mo. 1072, 61 S.W.2d 340; Brown v. General Motors Corp., Mo.App., 95 S.W.2d 654; Lloyd's Ins. Co. of America v. Moberly, 231 Mo. App. 920, 929, 930, 82 S.W.2d 139; Taber v. Universal Exploration Co., ......
-
State ex rel. General Mills v. Waltner
...& Tile Co. v. Wright, 339 Mo. 160, 95 S.W.2d 804; Barrie v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis. 138 Mo.App. 557, 119 S.W. 1020; Brown v. General Motors Corp., 95 S.W.2d 654; Gordon v. Bleek, 233 S.W. 265; Carson Quinn, 127 Mo.App. 525, 105 S.W. 1088; Smith v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., 340......
-
Gerber v. Schutte Inv. Co.
...Co., 69 S.W. 368; Kennedy v. Phillips, 5 S.W.2d 33; Duff v. Eichler, 82 S.W.2d 881; Tressler v. Whitsett, 12 S.W.2d 723; Brown v. General Motors Corp., 95 S.W.2d 654; Swaboda v. Brown, 196 N.E. 274, 129 Ohio St. Burt v. Nichols, 173 S.W. 681; Fassi v. Schuler, 159 S.W.2d 774; Roper v. Wadle......