Broyles v. State Highway Commission of Missouri
| Decision Date | 31 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 5098.,5098. |
| Citation | 48 S.W.2d 78 |
| Parties | BROYLES v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John W. Mather, of Jefferson City, J. Marvin Krause, of St. Louis, and B. F. Boyer, of Jefferson City, for plaintiff in error.
L. H. Breuer, of Rolla, and E. W. Bennett, of Salem, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff (defendant in error), by his next friend, J. W. Broyles, instituted an action for damages because of personal injuries arising out of his employment, against defendant (plaintiff in error) as his employer. On trial to a jury defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, recovered a judgment in the sum of $5,000 against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant. Thereafter the cause came to this court on appeal, which appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with our rules. See Broyles v. State Highway Commission, 223 Mo. App. 71, 8 S.W.(2d) 1021. Defendant then filed its application for a writ of error directed to the circuit court of Dent county, and said writ was duly issued. The cause is now here on that writ.
It is unnecessary to go into the merits of this cause. The petition, as indicated, set up an action in tort to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of defendant, its agents and servants, in directing plaintiff to clean a tank alleged to have been recently filled with gasoline, which tank was caused to explode by reason of a lighted match used by plaintiff in obeying said order, resulting in severe injuries to plaintiff's face.
While defendant contends the petition failed to state a cause of action, that point is of minor importance. The principal and decisive question raised by defendant's demurrer to the petition is whether defendant, the state highway commission of Missouri, may be sued in tort for the negligence of its agents and servants. This identical question was recently passed upon by the Supreme Court, for the first time, in the case of Dr. W. B. Bush v. State Highway Commission of the State of Missouri, 46 S.W.(2d) 854, not yet reported [in State reports]. In a most exhaustive opinion, in which the Centennial Road Law (Laws...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson Sawmill Co., Inc. v. U.S., 77-1768
...its consent. See, e. g., Luttrell v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 379 S.W.2d 137 (Mo.App.1964); Broyles v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 48 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.1932). We construe Bates to mean that the State Highway Commission of Missouri is liable to suit in state court on a......
-
Smith v. Aldridge
...the highway may be conceded. Bush v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 329 Mo. 843, 46 S.W.2d 854; Broyles v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 78; Rector v. Tobin Construction Co., Mo.App., 351 S.W.2d 816. Those cases are based on the doctrine that the State of M......
-
Luttrell v. State Highway Commission, 31630
...not liable in an action for tort. Bush v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 329 Mo. 843, 46 S.W.2d 854; Broyles v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 78. In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Riggs, 226 Mo.App. 1053, 47 S.W.2d 178, the same rule is stated in......
-
Thrasher v. Missouri State Highway Commission, N81-0055C.
...is a subordinate branch of the executive department of the government of the State of Missouri. See Broyles v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 48 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Mo.App.1932). Therefore, according to the case law, plaintiff's claim for back wages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred by the......