Gleason v. Texas Co.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 29750 |
| Citation | 46 S.W.2d 546 |
| Parties | GLEASON v. TEXAS CO. et al. (two cases) |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rehearing Overruled February 11, 1932.
C. T Craig and Norman & Norman, all of Joplin, for appellants.
R. A Pearson, of Joplin, for respondent City of Joplin.
J. H Hill, John R. Ramsey, and B. W. Griffith, all of Tulsa, Okl., and Haywood Scott, of Joplin, for respondent Texas Co.
Action by Hattie Y. Gleason to recover $ 15,000 for personal injuries. The suit of George W. Gleason, her husband, for damages on account of said personal injuries was consolidated with this case. At the close of plaintiffs' case, the court gave an instruction directing the jury to return a verdict for defendant city of Joplin. Plaintiffs admit the correctness of this ruling. On submission of the cases, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant company. Judgment accordingly, and plaintiffs appealed.
It was alleged that plaintiff Hattie Y. Gleason was walking on a sidewalk in Joplin, Mo., and while in the exercise of ordinary care she stepped on oil, grease, or other slippery substance on said walk and fell, which injured her. It was further alleged that defendant caused or permitted the oil, grease, or other slippery substance to be on said walk, and that it knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, that said substance was on said walk in time, by the exercise of ordinary care, to have removed it before plaintiff's fall and injury. It was further alleged that the company was negligent in that it violated certain pleaded ordinances of the city of Joplin.
Defendant answered by a general denial with a plea of contributory negligence. The reply was a general denial.
The facts follow: On June 8, 1928, plaintiff Hattie Y. Gleason, while walking on a public sidewalk located south of and adjacent to the lot occupied by defendant with an oil station, slipped and fell on said walk and was thereby injured.
There was evidence for plaintiffs tending to show the following: On said day and shortly before the injury, an employee of defendant, in attempting to wash oil from the driveway near the oil station, turned water from a hose on the oil, causing it with the water to run down the driveway, across the sidewalk and into the street. Some of the oil and water adhered to the walk and made it slippery. About 2:30 p. m., Mrs. Gleason approached the oil and water on the walk. She was within ten feet of the substance when she first saw it. It was grayish white and had the appearance of oil and grease. It was too wide to step over, but it did not appear to Mrs. Gleason that it would be dangerous to walk on it. Under the circumstances, she stepped on the substance, slipped, fell, and was injured. In falling, her hands came in contact with the walk, which caused them to be covered with grease. The walk was wet with attempts to wash away the oil. It looked like the water had been there only a few minutes. There was no refuse or litter on the walk. In a short time after Mrs. Gleason fell, an employee of defendant washed the grease from the walk with gasoline.
On the contrary there was evidence for defendant tending to show the following: An automobile was driven up the driveway to the oil station shortly after noon on said day. Oil dripped from the crank case of the automobile, making spots on the driveway four inches in diameter. After the automobile had been served with gas or oil and driven from the station, the employee in charge sprinkled Armour's I.X.L. powder over the oil spots, dampened with water, and scrubbed with a broom until the oil was absorbed by the powder. He then turned water from the hose on the spots. This caused a flow about two feet wide over the driveway and across the sidewalk. The substance on the walk was plain water, about two feet wide and Mrs. Gleason could have stepped over it. The employee finished removing the oil spots about 2.30 p. m. At the time Mrs. Gleason...
To continue reading
Request your trial