Ebert v. A. J. Kasper Co.
Decision Date | 30 April 1934 |
Parties | ARLEY EBERT, RESPONDENT, v. A. J. KASPER COMPANY, APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Darius A. Brown Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
W. W McCanles for respondent.
German & German for appellant.
Plaintiff, eighteen years of age, was, on April 4, 1927, employed by the defendant as its "handy man" in its wholesale house in Kansas City. The three-story building in which defendant carried on its business was leased to it about two months prior to the time plaintiff became its employee. A freight elevator which had been installed in the building many years before defendant leased the premises was used in carrying freight between the floors. The elevator, the platform of which was approximately five feet square, was operated by means of a cable. There was a gate at the elevator shaft on each floor at the front of the elevator which could be raised and lowered by the one operating the elevator. On May 5, 1927, plaintiff placed a drum of coffee on the elevator intending to take it from the first floor to the third floor of the building. He entered the elevator, put it in motion by pulling the control cable, and sat down upon the drum of coffee. When near the third floor he stepped toward the front of the elevator. In relating this circumstance, plaintiff testified:
Plaintiff's right foot was caught and jammed between the elevator and the third floor, resulting in the loss of his great toe and injury to his second toe.
There was a clearance of one-half inch between the elevator floor and the floors in the building. An expert witness testified that a freight elevator "that didn't have an enclosure on it to keep anybody from stepping off, it should have the protection of a toe guard that should push anything off by there."
After the accident plaintiff and defendant agreed that the latter would pay the former as though the injury was compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Pursuant to the agreement defendant paid to the plaintiff sums totalling $ 416.13 and also medical aid in the amount of $ 315.33. On February 21, 1928, plaintiff, through his next friend, brought this suit, a common law action to recover damages for the injuries which he sustained. He obtained a judgment in the sum of $ 1800, from which the defendant has appealed.
The petition alleged three grounds of negligence; the first passed out of the case, the others follow:
The defendant objected to the evidence tending to show that the absence of toe guard rendered the elevator not reasonably safe on the ground that such negligence was not pleaded. At the close of the evidence the plaintiff obtained leave to amend his petition so as to make paragraphs (b) and (c) read as follows:
The defendant assigns error to the action of the court in refusing to direct verdict in its favor. In support of this insistence the defendant says: (1) No negligence on its part was shown; (2) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and (3) that the Workmen's Compensation Law controls.
There was substantial evidence that it was customary to maintain toe boards or guards in elevators such as the one here involved and that the failure to provide such a guard rendered the elevator unsafe. This was sufficient to show negligence on the part of the defendant. [Martin v. Kline Apparel Co., 249 S.W. 965; Birdsong v. Jones, 30 S.W.2d 1094.]
Moreover one of the defenses was that a toe board was maintained in each floor. Thus, defendant recognized that it was its duty to maintain the guard which the plaintiff says it did not maintain. [Bachman v. Q. O. & K. C. R. R. Co., 274 S.W. 764, 767....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berry v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co.
... ... Louis, 125 S.W.2d 527; Barber v. Kellogg, 123 ... S.W.2d 100; Bachman v. Quincy, O. & K.C.R., 310 Mo ... 48, 274 S.W. 764; Ebert v. A.J. Casper Co., 71 ... S.W.2d 859, 228 Mo.App. 589; Robertson v. Wall, 195 ... S.W.2d 894. (2) The placing of the light pole in the sidewalk ... ...
- Brown v. City of Marshall