Eaton v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 16 August 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25075 |
| Citation | 287 S.W. 614 |
| Parties | EATON v. WALLACE et ux |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
A. L Schweitzer and Marsalek, Stahlhuth & Godfrey, all of St Louis, for appellant.
Action for damages for personal injuries. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended petition. Plaintiff refused to plead over, judgment went for defendants, and plaintiff appealed. The amount of damages prayed for fixes our appellate jurisdiction. We will refer to the parties here as they were below.
The sole question is whether or not said second amended petition states a cause of action. That all facts well pleaded in a petition or other pleading, when challenged by general demurrer, must be taken as true is too well settled to require citation of authority. On this proposition, plaintiff cites Martin v. Coal Co., 288 Mo. 241, loc. cit. 253, 232 S.W. 149. That case and the cases therein cited well enough state the general rule. We therefore proceed at once to a consideration of the allegations of the second amended petition.
It is alleged that plaintiff was employed at the residence of defendants as a laundress; that it was necessary in the scope of her employment for her to go from the first floor to the basement of said residence by means of a stairway provided by defendants; and that defendants negligently failed to discharge their said duty in the premises, in this: that the defendants negligently caused and permitted said stairway to be and remain dark, and negligently failed to provide any artificial means of lighting said stairway; that there was an electric socket connected with electric wires near the base of said stairway, which socket was designed and intended to provide light for said stairway, when provided with an electric bulb; and plaintiff further states that defendants, on said 8th day of November, 1921, and for a long time theretofore, negligently failed to provide an electric bulb in said socket, and negligently caused and permitted said socket to be without an electric bulb, so that the same did not serve to light said stairway.
Plaintiff further states that on said 8th day of November, 1921, in the scope and course of her said employment for defendants, she was in the act of descending said stairway; that, as a direct and proximate result of the darkness thereof, she was unable to see said steps and missed her footing on said steps and was caused to fall violently down said steps to the basement below, and was thereby injured and damaged, as hereinafter more particularly alleged; and plaintiff further states that said stairway, by reason of the negligence of defendants herein specified, was not in a reasonably safe condition, but was unsafe and dangerous for the purpose and use for which it was provided by defendants.
'Plaintiff further states that, as a direct result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendants, as aforesaid, without any fault or negligence on her part, this plaintiff sustained the following injuries, to wit:'
Said petition then sets out in detail the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by plaintiff in such fall, and concluded with a prayer for damages in the sum of $ 10,000.
It is the contention of defendants that said petition states no facts indicating causal connection between the negligent acts charged and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. That such causal connection must appear is well established. Plaintiff concedes that such is the law, but contends that such causal connection is appropriately and sufficiently alleged. The contention of want of allegation indicating causal connection is not in the failure of plaintiff to allege that the dark stairway was the cause of her injuries, because it is alleged that, as a direct and proximate result of the darkness of said stairway, she was unable to see the steps and missed her footing on said steps and was thereby caused to fall. Defendants' contention seems to be that, conceding that the negligence of defendants in failing to use reasonable care to light said stairway is properly charged in the petition, said alleged negligent act was not the proximate cause of the injuries and that the facts alleged in the petition so show.
Defendants argue that plaintiff was not misled by the absence of a light into a dangerous place or caused to come into contact with objects, the existence of which she did not know or discover on account of such absence of light. They say that it is apparent that plaintiff, with full knowledge of the darkness and of her inability to see the steps, undertook to descend into the darkness and to grope her way down the steps, and, while in the act of relying upon her ability to grope her way through such darkness, she fell and was injured. The steps themselves are not alleged to be defective, and the only negligence charged is the failure of defendants to light said steps, or to make it possible for plaintiff to light them, because it is alleged that defendants had removed or failed to provide an electric light bulb. It seems, then, that the real contention is that it appears from the face of the petition that defendants' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, and that her alleged injuries were caused by an independent, intervening,...
To continue reading
Request your trial