Gimmarro v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 03 May 1938
• Docket Number: 34638
• Parties: Paul Gimmarro v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

116 S.W.2d 11

342 Mo. 428

Paul Gimmarro v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant

No. 34638

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 3, 1938

Rehearing Denied December 17, 1937.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Emory H. Wright Opinion filed at May Term, 1937, August 26, 1937; motion for rehearing filed; motion overruled December 17, 1937; motion to transfer to Court en Banc filed; motion overruled at May Term, 1938, May 3, 1938.

Affirmed.

George Kingsley, Francis L. Roach and Marcy K. Brown Jr., for Kansas City.

(1) The court erred in refusing appellant's request for a peremptory instruction in the nature of a demurrer at the close of respondent's case and at the close of all the evidence; because (a) No negligence of appellant was shown. (b) The work was of a transitory nature, constantly changing, and the place in which to work was made by respondent and his co-laborers themselves, and there is no allegation in the petition and no showing of any defect that had existed for such a length of time that appellant knew of the same or could have known of the same in time to have remedied it. (c) If any negligence was shown it was the negligence of a fellow servant of respondent. Pippin v. Plummer Const. Co., 187 Mo.App. 371; Livengood v. Zinc Co., 179 Mo. 241; Bradley v. Forbes Tea & Coffee Co., 213 Mo. 332; State ex rel. Horspool v. Haid, 69 S.W.2d 923, 40 S.W.2d 614, 65 S.W.2d 925; Ryan v. Lea, 249 S.W. 687; Dickinson v. Jenkins, 144 Mo.App. 136; Britt v. Crebo, 199 S.W. 157; Anderson v. Construction Co., 178 S.W. 737; Wood v. Lumber Co., 213 F. 593. (2) The court erred in refusing appellant's request for a peremptory instruction in the nature of a demurrer at the close of respondent's evidence and at the close of all the evidence; because (a) Respondent did not sustain the burden of proof on him as to the alleged fraudulent acts of defendant or as to the mistake in the procurement of the settlement. (b) There is no proof of rescission of the settlement. (c) From the evidence, as a matter of law, the release is valid and binding. (d) The proof all shows ratification of the release even if wrongfully obtained. Macklin v. Const. Co., 31 S.W.2d 18; Powers v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 66 S.W.2d 846; Poe v. Illinois Cent. Railroad Co., 99 S.W.2d 89, 73 S.W.2d 779; Brennecke v. Lumber Co., 44 S.W.2d 630; Conklin v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., 55 S.W.2d 308; Mueller v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 38 S.W.2d 300; Higgins v. Amer. Car Co., 22 S.W.2d 1044; Alford v. Wabash Ry. Co., 73 S.W.2d 281; Ensler v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., 23 S.W.2d 1034, 324 Mo. 1037; Powers v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 66 S.W.2d 845; Williams v. Term. Railroad Assn., 98 S.W.2d 654. (3) The court erred in giving Instruction 1 for respondent; because (a) It gives the jury a roving commission to determine negligence and want of care of appellant. Pevesdorf v. Light & Power Co., 64 S.W.2d 946; Allen v. Transit Co., 183 Mo. 434; Jenkins v. Ins. Co., 334 Mo. 946; Buel v. Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 564; Hurley v. Transportation Co., 56 S.W.2d 622; Birdsong v. Jones, 30 S.W.2d 1097; Munoz v. Foundry Co., 296 S.W. 231; Kepley v. Realty Co., 200 S.W. 756; Winslow v. Ry. Co., 192 S.W. 125; Priebe v. Crandall, 187 S.W. 608; Allen v. Lbr. Co., 190 Mo.App. 406; Martin v. Ry. Co., 175 Mo.App. 469; Roberts v. Piedmont, 166 Mo.App. 9; Miller v. Ry. Co., 155 Mo.App. 545; Chemical Co. v. Ray County, 145 Mo.App. 675; Mulderig v. Ry. Co., 116 Mo.App. 667; Summers v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 324; Stermolle v. Brainerd, 24 S.W.2d 174; Carpenter v. Heinz, 239 S.W. 594; Yarnall v. Ry. Co., 75 Mo. 583; Ravenscraft v. Ry. Co., 27 Mo.App. 622. (b) It fails to cover the defenses of fellow servant, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, release and ratification of release, and thus ignores issues in the case. Williams v. Term. Railroad Assn., 98 S.W.2d 655; Pevesdorf v. Union E. L. & P. Co., 64 S.W.2d 947; Jones v. Ry. Co., 50 S.W.2d 220; Woods v. Moore, 48 S.W.2d 206; Cantley v. Plattner, 66 S.W.2d 131; Alexander v. Hoenshell, 66 S.W.2d 168; (c) It is not predicated upon and is broader than both the pleadings and the evidence. Watts v. Mousetts, 85 S.W.2d 491; Grimes v. Red Line Service, 85 S.W.2d 769; Ostopshook v. Steel Co., 227 Mo.App. 643; Kansas City Rys. Co. v. Couch, 187 S.W. 66; Killian v. Real Estate Co., 89 S.W.2d 718; Sprakman v. Wabash Ry. Co., 191 Mo.App. 469; Clark v. Wells, 44 S.W.2d 865; State ex rel. Natl. Newspapers' Assn. v. Ellison, 176 S.W. 13; Egan v. Palmer, 293 S.W. 465. (d) It assumes that it was not reasonably safe to do the work in the manner shown by the evidence. Gebhardt v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 296 S.W. 447; Rey v. Fayette R. Plumb, Inc., 287 S.W. 783; Boland v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 284 S.W. 144; Ganey v. Kansas City, 259 Mo. 663; Reel v. Investment Co., 236 S.W. 47; Dunsmore v. Hartmann, 256 S.W. 1034.

John V. Hill, Trusty & Pugh and Guy Green, Jr., for respondent.

(1) The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. There is evidence that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to provide plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work in that (a) he was negligently ordered to work in a place and at a time when rocks would likely roll down and injure him; (b) defendant negligently failed to adopt and provide reasonable means to keep such rocks from rolling down and injuring him under such circumstances. Hoffman v. Peerless White Lime Co., 296 S.W. 771; McNairy v. Pulitzer Co., 274 S.W. 852; DeBastiana v. Lesser, 297 S.W. 174; Seitz v. Pelligreen, etc., Co., 203 S.W. 505; Schuh v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 241 S.W. 642; Dell v. Schaefer Const. Co., 29 S.W.2d 77; Clark v. Rock Hill Quarry, etc., Co., 7 S.W.2d 716; Markley v. Kansas City, 286 S.W. 125. The plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the negligence of a fellow servant and if they were caused by the negligence of a fellow workman his negligence was that of the defendant. Bender v. Kroger, 310 Mo. 496, 276 S.W. 408; Thomas v. Amer. Sash & Door Co., 14 S.W.2d 1, l. c. 4; Snyder v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 14 S.W.2d 607; Wall v. Tank Co., 62 S.W.2d 767; Cunningham v. Lead Co., 26 S.W.2d 960; McNulty v. Cement Co., 249 S.W. 734; Clark v. Rock Hill, etc., Co., 7 S.W.2d 716; Markley v. Kansas City, 286 S.W. 125; Schuh v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 241 S.W. 641. There could be no assumption of risk because plaintiff's injury grew out of the master's negligence. Williams v. Term. Railroad Assn., 98 S.W.2d 655; Hoffman v. Peerless, etc., Co., 296 S.W. 772. Plaintiff's injuries were not the result of unavoidable accident because there was evidence of defendant's negligence and that they proceeded from a known cause. Hoffman v. Peerless, etc., Co., 296 S.W. 772; Dell v. Schaefer Const. Co., 29 S.W.2d 78; Dietzman v. St. L., etc., Co., 254 S.W. 59. Defendant does not claim plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Hoffman v. Peerless, etc., Co., 296 S.W. 773; McNairy v. Pulitzer, 274 S.W. 849; DeBastiani v. Lesser, 297 S.W. 174; Schuh v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 241 S.W. 641. (2) The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled on the question of release because: (a) Defendant made the issue of release solely one of fact for the jury. Berkson v. K. C. Cable Ry. Co., 45 S.W. 1119; Gayle v. Mo. Car Co., 76 S.W. 987; Sawyer v. Walker, 102 S.W. 544; Luikart v. Miller, 48 S.W.2d 867; Swift v. Frisco Ry. Co., 15 S.W.2d 964; Giffin v. Petree, 46 S.W.2d 609; Mayhew v. Travelers, 52 S.W.2d 29; Continental Cas. Co. v. Monarch Transfer & Storage Co., 23 S.W.2d 209; Wilcox v. Erwin, 49 S.W.2d 677; Farmers' State Bank v. Miller, 26 S.W.2d 863; Prewitt v. Witte, 26 S.W.2d 1020. (b) The defendant did not sustain the burden of proving a valid, binding release because there was no evidence of a meeting of the minds and defendant's evidence shows a lack of consideration. Nelson v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 30 S.W.2d 1044; Arnold v. Brotherhood, 101 S.W.2d 733; Gates v. Crane Co., 204 S.W. 38; Slinkard v. Lamb Const. Co., 212 S.W. 61, 225 S.W. 352; Bennett v. Lumber Co., 94 S.W. 811. (3) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 was a correct submission. (a) Defendant requested and received instructions of same general character and substance as plaintiff. Primmer v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 20 S.W.2d 590; Bennette v. Hader, 87 S.W.2d 413; Cole v. Frisco, 61 S.W.2d 347; Meyers v. Drake, 24 S.W.2d 124; Murphy v. Duerbeck, 19 S.W.2d 1040. (b) The instruction was predicated upon the pleadings and did not broaden the allegations therein. Morris v. Atlas Cement Co., 19 S.W.2d 865; Lampe v. Kansas City, 49 S.W.2d 627; Weise v. Harrison, 89 S.W.2d 148; Bergfeld v. K. C. Rys., 227 S.W. 106; Rosenzweig v. Wells, 273 S.W. 1071; Morris v. Atlas, etc., Co., 19 S.W.2d 865; Halley v. Fed. Truck Co., 274 S.W. 507; Alvarez v. Traffic, etc., Co., 271 S.W. 531; Bracket v. James Black Co., 32 S.W.2d 288; Heryford v. Spitcaufsky, 200 S.W. 123. (c) Plaintiff's instruction covered every defense within the pleadings and the evidence. It was unnecessary to submit contributory negligence because defendant abandoned the specific theory pleaded. Warren v. Guidici, 50 S.W.2d 636; Neal v. Curtis Co., 41 S.W.2d 543; Mitchell v. Wabash, 334 Mo. 926, 69 S.W.2d 286; Nance v. Landsdell, 73 S.W.2d 346; Greer v. St. L. Pub. Serv. Co., 87 S.W.2d 240; Pischel v. Marceline Coal Co., 221 S.W. 74; Edelman v. Wells, 242 S.W. 991; Thimmig v. General, etc., Co., 85 S.W.2d 213; Shaw v. Wilcox, 224 S.W. 58; Columbia Cab Co. v. Roemmick, 208 S.W. 861; Neal v. Caldwell, 34 S.W.2d 112. Defense of fellow servant was not pleaded or submitted and plaintiff's instruction required findings negativing such defense. Bender v. Kroeger, 276 S.W.2d 405; Crane v. Liberty Fdry. Co., 17 S.W.2d 945; Bennett v. O'Malley, 238 S.W. 144; McCauley v. Anheuser-Busch, 254 S.W. 872; Snyder v. Amer. Car & Fdry. Co., 14...