Edmondson v. Hotel Statler Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1924
• Docket Number: No. 24602.,24602.
• Citation: 267 S.W. 612
• Parties: EDMONDSON v. HOTEL STATLER CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

267 S.W. 612

EDMONDSON v. HOTEL STATLER CO.

No. 24602.

(Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 19, 1924.

Rehearing Denied December 30, 1924.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Anthony F. Ittner, Judge.

Action by Jean Edmondson against Hotel Stotler Company, Incorporated. Judgment

for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

M. U. Hayden, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Earl M. Pirkey, of St. Louis, for respondent.

JAMES T. BLAIR, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for $10,000 for damages for injuries respondent alleges she received when she fell as a result of catching her foot in a hole in a grating on the floor of a room in which she was working in appellant's employ.

Appellant operates a hotel, and respondent worked in the fruit pantry with several other employés. Her duty was to prepare salads and place them upon an order board, whence they were taken by waiters. The order board ran along the north side of the pantry. Along the west side of the room there was a sink and a drain board about six feet long. The floor in front of this was concrete, and on the floor at that place appellant maintained a grating, obviously to enable those using it to avoid water which might get on the concrete floor from the sink and drain board and make it wet and slippery. This grating was wooden slats about an inch and a half wide and about two feet long, which ran east and west, and were nailed to wooden runners or crosspieces which ran north and south. The slats were nailed on so that there was a space of about three quarters of an inch between each two of them. The height of the tops of the slats from the floor was about an inch and a half. About two feet from the south end of the grating one of these slats was missing. It seems it had been broken out. At any rate it was out. Next to this hole in the grating there were two sound slats, and then the next slat had been broken and one-half of it was missing. The holes left by the missing pieces were about three inches wide and one and one-half inches deep. There is substantial evidence that the grating had been in this condition at least since November, 1921. There was evidence that as a result of employés catching their feet in these holes several complaints of the condition of the grating had been made, some weeks before respondent's injury, to the persons in charge of the fruit pantry and of the work therein for appellant, and the danger of injury pointed out, and that those persons had promised to see to it.

The accident happened about 6 p. m. on the evening of April 7, 1922. This was a busy time; a "rush hour" in the work in the fruit pantry. In the course of her work it became respondent's duty to get some asparagus tips from the drain board over the sink. She had in her hand a pan. The evidence tends to show that at this time Cecelia Bultel, who at times acted as forelady in the pantry, was seated on or in front of the drain board, and was eating supper, and that she occupied a part of the space in such way that it was necessary for respondent to step upon the south end of the grating in order to reach the asparagus tips she sought. She did step upon that end of it, and her foot became caught in the opening due to the absence of the whole slat, and she fell against the drain board. Respondent knew the slat was missing, and the light at the time was good. In view of questions raised, some of her testimony will be set out a little more fully. She said that some weeks previously she had noticed the holes in the grating, and had caught her foot in one of them, and had notified all of the three persons in authority about it, and had stated there was danger that "some of the girls were going to get hurt if it wasn't fixed." Others had complained. She said she received promises to notify the stewards in charge of the kitchen and pantry, and was told the assistant steward had been notified. She testified she "looked where she was going" when she stepped upon the grating, and thought she could "avoid stepping in there," and "tried to step by the side of the place where" the slat was broken out. She further testified:

She would go to the sink in the course of her work "fifty times" a day and in doing so step upon the grating that when she approached it at the time she fell she stepped upon it with her right foot and it was the one which was caught in the hole.

"Q. Now, you said that your right foot got caught on it at this time. A. It was.

"Q. Now, when you put the right foot up on the grating, just where did you put it? A. Well, I just started to put it, of course I thought I was stepping over the hole to the side.

"Q. Yes; you attempted to step over the hole? A. Yes, sir.

"Mr. Pirkey: I object to the interruption by counsel of the witness.

"The Court: Try not to interrupt the witness. Had you finished your answer? A. I was trying to answer him, where he asked me how I did step up on the board.

"The Court: All right. A. I stepped up on the board and started to and tried to step around it, thought I was stepping around it, and my foot went in it and wedged my foot so I couldn't move it; throwing me down on my side.

"Q. Now, that was the right foot? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you put the right foot up on the board? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And instead of putting it up on the board you put it in the space where the slates were out? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. You were watching it then, were you? A. Yes, sir; I was watching.

"Q. You were watching it then? A. Yes.

"Q. And you just stepped right down in that space? A. My foot slipped down in it.

"Q. It slipped down it? A. Well, I just stepped, I thought was stepping by the side of it and my foot went out.

"Q. You didn't step by the side of it, but you stepped in it; is that correct? A. Well, my foot went down in it.

"Q. It went down in it? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. In other words, you didn't put your foot over far enough to the other side to avoid stepping into this place where the slat was out? A. I tried to.

"Q. You tried to? A. I thought I was; yes, sir.

"Q. Was there anything there at that time, Mrs. Edmondson, to prevent you from passing your foot from one to the other side of this space where the lath was out? A. I don't just understand that question.

"Q. I will repeat it again. There wasn't anything there on either side of the place where this lath was out that would prevent you from putting your foot over there and out of the space where the lath was out? A. Well, there was a girl standing to my right.

"Q. Standing at your right? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And who was the girl standing at your right? A. Cecelia Bultel.

"Q. Who? A. Cecelia Bultel.

"Q. How do you spell her name? A. B-u-l-t-e-l. Q. And you say she was standing at your right? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Now, as a matter of fact, Mrs. Edmondson wasn't Cecelia Bultel sitting on your left eating her dinner or supper? A. She was sitting on my right.

"Q. Wasn't she sitting on the left up against a cabinet there eating her supper. A. She was sitting on my right.

"Q. She was sitting on your right? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Well, then there was nothing in the space to your left, was there? A. No, sir. "Q. Not a thing? A. No, sir.

"Q. So then if you put your foot just two or three inches to the south or to the left from that space, why you would have stepped upon the grating and walked right up to the drain board? (The reporter reads the question). A. Well, I was going direct where I should set the pan down.

"Q. But if you would have done that you would have avoided stepping into this space which was left on account of the absence of the slat, would you not? A. Well, if I had— there was only one or two strips between that, and the one that was broken half in two, and if I hadn't stepped in this one I might have stepped in the other one. There wasn't more than room

"Q. Well, but there was space between those, though, of eight or nine or ten inches, was there not? A. I don't

"Q. There were three or four slats in there to the left of this one, were there not? A. Well, I never counted the slats in between; I don't know.

"Q. There were in there, weren't there? A. There were some in there, but I don't know how many.

"Q. And you noticed that space in there just before you stepped up on that particular time? A. Well, I intended to step to the right.

"Q. You what? A. I intended to step to the right.

"Q. Then you knew it was there, then? A. I :mew the place was there; yes, sir."

With respect to the injuries respondent received the evidence will be set out in connection with the consideration of the assignment that the verdict is excessive.

The instructions of which appellant complains read as follows:

"(1) The court instructs the jury that, if they find from the evidence that on April 7, 1922, and for some days next prior thereto, plaintiff was in the service of defendant at the Statler Hotel mentioned in the evidence as a pantry girl, and that she worked as such in a place in said hotel known as the fruit pantry, and that there was a grating on the floor of said pantry, and that on said day and for some days next prior thereto there was a board or slat and a part of another board or slat missing from said grating, and that by reason of said slat and part being missing it was not reasonably safe for plaintiff to work in said pantry at the work she was doing, and that on April 7, 1922, plaintiff was working in said pantry and was in the discharge of the duty of such employment under defendant, and that while she was so working she caught a part of her shoe in the space left by such missing slat, and that thereby she was caused to fall and be thrown and to strike an object, and that thereby she sustained injuries mentioned in the evidence, and if the jury further find from the evidence that defendant knew or by the exercise of ordinary care would have known that said slat and said part of a slat were missing before plaintiff was injured, and that by reason of said slat and...