Duff v. Eichler
Decision Date | 07 May 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 32906.,32906. |
Citation | 82 S.W.2d 881 |
Parties | THOMAS A. DUFF, Appellant, v. WALTER J. EICHLER. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. O'Neill Ryan, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Lee, Fricke & Lee for appellant.
(1) The petition is good against demurrer. It is alleged that respondent negligently failed to provide and to keep a light burning in the vestibule, which created the dangerous and unsafe condition and caused the injuries, in violation of the city ordinance. 39 A.L.R. 302, 25 A.L.R. 1312; Roman v. King, 289 Mo. 641; State v. Haid, 330 Mo. 959, 51 S.W. (2d) 1015; Wilson v. Jones, 182 S.W. 756; 36 C.J. 213, note 58, p. 250, sec. 971; English v. Sahlender, 47 S.W. (2d) 150. (2) Demurrer admits all facts well pleaded in the petition, which must be liberally construed. Thompson v. Farmers' Exchange Bank, 333 Mo. 437. (3) Appellant was entitled to a submission of his case to the jury on the issue whether respondent was negligent in failing to provide and keep a light burning in the vestibule constantly throughout the nighttime. McCloskey v. Salveter & Stewart Inv. Co., 317 Mo. 1156, 298 S.W. 235; 36 C.J. 214, secs. 891, 892. (4) The test is whether the guest is upon the premises rightfully or wrongfully. The negligence charged in the petition and admitted by the demurrer is the failure to provide and to keep a light constantly burning in the vestibule. That would be actionable if it was the tenant Glomski who was injured. Wilson v. Frankel, 61 S.W. (2d) 363; Herdt v. Koenig, 137 Mo. App. 589; Eyre v. Jordon, 111 Mo. 424; 36 C.J. 224, sec. 913.
Otto O. Fickeissen for respondent.
(1) The petition is demurrable for the following reasons: (a) There is no allegation that respondent owed appellant any legal duty except the bald statement that defendant was the owner of the premises in question "and in charge and control thereof," which is a mere legal conclusion and should be disregarded when passing upon a demurrer to the petition. Mack v. Eissell, 59 S.W. (2d) 1051; Vogt v. Wurmb, 318 Mo. 476; Main v. Lehman, 294 Mo. 591; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 184. (b) Plaintiff having entered the building in the nighttime and when it was dark and by his petition and statement admitting that he was injured when leaving the building was guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover. Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 184; Bananomi v. Purcell, 287 Mo. 446; Vogt v. Wurmb, 318 Mo. 475; Border v. Sedalia, 161 Mo. App. 638. (2) Demurrer admits all facts well pleaded in the petition, but in passing upon a demurrer to the petition, the petition must be stripped of all conclusions and matter improperly pleaded and if what remains fails to state a cause of action, such petition is demurrable. Thompson v. Farmers Exchange Bank, 62 S.W. (2d) 803, 333 Mo. 437. We invite the court's attention to the opinion commencing with (11-14) on pages 810 and 811 of the Thompson case. Mack v. Eissell, 59 S.W. (2d) 1052. (3) The judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed for failure of appellant to have allowed and file in the trial court bill of exceptions within the time required by law. Smith v. Russell, 171 Mo. App. 324; Hardin v. Oil Co., 187 Mo. App. 730; Langstaff v. Webster Groves, 246 Mo. 225. (4) The judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed for failure of appellant to file a complete abstract. Whitehead v. Ry., 176 Mo. 479; Vandeventer v. Goss, 190 Mo. 244; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 191 Mo. 475; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625; Herman Savings Bank v. Kroop, 266 Mo. 226; Crohn v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 145 Mo. App. 163; Gooden v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 194 Mo. App. 677; Hummell v. Field, 216 Mo. App. 139; Sandretto v. Railroad Co., 218 Mo. App. 590; Brand v. Cannon, 118 Mo. 598.
Appellant filed his second amended petition in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking to recover damages in the sum of $15,000 for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained as the result of the negligence of respondent. The trial court sustained respondent's demurrer to the petition. Appellant declined to plead further and judgment was entered against him, whereupon he appealed.
Since the sufficiency of the petition is the sole question for our determination we will quote it insofar as material to the issue. It reads:
Here follows a statement in detail of the injuries sustained by appellant, which are immaterial to the issue presented. The petition continues as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial