Dudacs v. Hotel Statler Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19779.,19779.
• Parties: DUDACS v. HOTEL STATLER CO., Inc.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

295 S.W. 826

DUDACS v. HOTEL STATLER CO., Inc.

No. 19779.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 7, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action for personal injuries brought by John Dudacs against the Hotel Statler Company, Incorporated. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Charles P. Comer, of St. Louis, for respondent.

DAUES, P. J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries, in which plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $3,000, from which defendant has appealed.

The petition pleads that plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant hotel company as a waiter, and as such was required to walk over the floors in the hotel, carrying food from the kitchen in the basement into the dining room, which was on the first floor; that on May 19, 1924, while plaintiff was performing this work, defendant negligently permitted the floor in the kitchen to become and remain wet and slippery, thereby making it unsafe to walk upon, and which condition was known to the defendant; that as a result of such negligence plaintiff, while engaged in his duties, slipped and fell on the kitchen floor and was injured.

The answer is a general denial, with a plea of contributory negligence to the effect that plaintiff knew of the wet condition of the floor and failed to walk carefully or look where he was walking. The reply is conventional.

We will analyze the case in the order in which the assignments of error appear. It is first said that the court committed reversible error in allowing plaintiff's counsel to interrogate jurors on voir dire examination concerning their connection with a certain liability insurance company. In that particular, the record is as follows:

Interrogations by plaintiff's counsel:

"Q. Are you (Juror Krein) interested in any way, directly or indirectly, with the Travelers' Liability Insurance Company?

"Mr. Roach: That is objected to, your honor—

"Juror Krein (interrupting): No, sir.

"Mr. Roach (continuing)—as not being a proper inquiry; the Travelers' Insurance Company not being the defendant in this case. It is prejudicial to the rights and interests of the defendant, and defendant moves the court to declare a mistrial and discharge this jury.

"The Court (addressing counsel): Come up here. (At this point court and counsel confer out of the hearing of the jury and the stenographer.)

"Mr. Roach: We would like to make up the record on that, your honor.

"The Court: You may make your objection.

"Mr. Roach: The court overrules the objection, and we except to the ruling of the court (To which action and ruling of the court the defendant, by its counsel, at the time duly excepted and still excepts.)

"Mr. Comer: Let the record show that it is admitted that the defendant is insured by the Travelers' Insurance Company. Mr. Stenographer, ask the question, will you? (Stenographer reads last question as follows: `Are you interested in any way, directly or indirectly, with the Travelers' Liability Insurance Company?')

"Juror Krein: What was my answer? No? I want to say that I carry accident insurance with the Travelers', if that is what you have reference to, directly or indirectly.

"Question by Mr. Comer: "Yes; the connection you may have.

"Juror Krein: Well, I carry accident insurance with the Travelers'—that is, personal insurance."

Similar questions were asked the other jurors collectively, to which objections were made and overruled. Counsel for appellant insisted that there never was an admission to the effect that this particular insurance company was connected with the case, or that plaintiff carried a policy in that company. From the record, however, it appears that the court so understood it, because it was on such theory that the court allowed the question to be asked. The record does positively show that it was conceded that the defendant was insured by this company. It is true, the record does show that counsel for plaintiff asked that the admission be shown of record. This was in the bill of exceptions, passed the opposing counsel, and met with the approval of the court before same was filed. We therefore take the record as bespeaking verity and that such admission was made, and we think the court did not err in allowing this interrogation. Wagner v. Gilsonite Const. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 220 S. W. 898; Kinney v. Railroad, 261 Mo. 97, 169 S. W. 23; Smith v. Scudiero (Mo. App.) 204 S. W. 565; Plannett v. McFall (Mo. App.) 284 S. W. 850; Malone v. Small et al. (Mo. App.) 291 S. W. 163.

It is next insisted that the demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained because it was not shown that defendant was chargeable with any negligence under the law. There is evidence...