Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, No. 51835
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 407 S.W.2d 894 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51835,No. 2 |
| Parties | Anna Marie LAMPKIN, Appellant, v. HARZFELD'S, a corporation, Respondent |
Page 894
v.
HARZFELD'S, a corporation, Respondent.
Page 895
Wm. Harrison Norton, Williams, Norton & Pollard, North Kansas City, for appellant.
E. E. Thompson, Thos. J. Conway, Jr., Edgar S. Carroll, Kansas City, for respondent, Popham, Thompson, Popham, Trusty & Conway, Kansas City, of counsel.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
In this action for damages in the amount of $50,000 for personal injuries the trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed. The issue is whether plaintiff sustained injuries resulting from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant with the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Chapter 287 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.). If so, plaintiff is relegated to the remedy of that law, and may not maintain this action against her employer. § 287.120(2); Marie v. Standard Steel Works, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 871, 875; Sheets v. Hill Brothers Distributors, Inc., Mo., 379 S.W.2d 514, 516.
Plaintiff alleged in her petition that she was employed by defendant as a sales lady, that she 'was advised that it would be
Page 896
necessary for her to take a series of flu shots' to be administered by a doctor who was an agent and employee of defendant, that on September 24, 1963, she was 'instructed' to appear before the doctor on the premises of defendant and was there 'administered the flu shot.' She then alleges that she had advised the doctor that she 'suffered from allergies,' that the defendant was negligent in administering the flu shot under the circumstances, and that she suffered a reaction resulting in substantial personal injuries.After the pleadings were at issue the defendant moved for summary judgment, and submitted as exhibits to the motion (1) a copy of plaintiff's petition: (2) two certificates from the Division of Workmen's Compensation showing that defendant was classified as a major employer and had accepted the occupational disease amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that the files of that office did not show a rejection of the law by plaintiff; (3) an affidavit by an officer of defendant that it was operating under and subject to the provisions of the Missouri Compensation Law, and that the liability of defendant under that law was fully insured by an insurance company authorized to do such business in Missouri; and (4) portions of a deposition of plaintiff in which she testified that she was 'encouraged,' 'advised' and 'instructed' to take the flu shot by the 'personnel department' of defendant, that she was told she should take the flu shot 'to prevent getting sick' and so she would have less time off from work, and that she paid $1.50 for the flu shot and thought defendant paid a percentage of the cost.
Summary judgment is authorized by Civil Rule. 74.04(c), V.A.M.R., where the 'pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' It is further provided in Civil Rule 74.04(h) that 'In no case shall a summary judgment be rendered on issue triable by jury or the court without a jury unless the prevailing party is shown by unassailable proof to be entitled thereto as a matter of law.' In this case no counter affidavits to the motion for summary judgment were filed by plaintiff. For purposes of this appeal we accept as correct the statements of fact in defendant's exhibits to the motion for summary judgment. Spradlin's Market, Inc. v. Springfield Newspapers, Mo., 398 S.W.2d 859, 862, Grubb v. Leroy L. Wade & Son, Inc., Mo., 384 S.W.2d 528.
The exhibits to the motion for summary judgment establish that plaintiff was an employee of defendant at the time of her alleged injuries, and that plaintiff and her employer were subject to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery County v. Smith, No. 00764
...and employee." Id. The Missouri Court of Appeals, citing the Missouri Supreme Court's decision 799 A.2d 423 in Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, 407 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Mo.1966), An injury arises `out of' the employment when there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is to b......
-
Kunce v. Junge Baking Co., No. 8788
...he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.' Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, Mo., 407 S.W.2d 894, 897(3, "Incidental' is a wanton word; it accommodates the writer's interpretation on one occasion and solicits the reader's on another.' Li......
-
Griffin v. Doss, No. 8555
...while performing an act for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee is usually compensable. '' Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, Mo., 407 S.W.2d 894, 897--898(6). This rule is applicable to situations involving transportation of the employee by the employer as an incident of the employment......
-
EI Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Faupel, C.A. No. 03A-04-014-RRC.
...if this was a federal or state agency). 72. Monette, 579 So.2d at 197. 73. Id. 74. Monette, 579 So.2d at 197. 75. Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, 407 S.W.2d 894, 895 76. Lampkin, 407 S.W.2d at 895-896. 77. Id at 896. 78. Lampkin, 407 S.W.2d at 897. 79. Id. 80. Lampkin, 407 S.W.2d at 897. 81. Id. 82.......
-
Montgomery County v. Smith, No. 00764
...and employee." Id. The Missouri Court of Appeals, citing the Missouri Supreme Court's decision 799 A.2d 423 in Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, 407 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Mo.1966), An injury arises `out of' the employment when there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is to b......
-
Kunce v. Junge Baking Co., No. 8788
...he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.' Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, Mo., 407 S.W.2d 894, 897(3, "Incidental' is a wanton word; it accommodates the writer's interpretation on one occasion and solicits the reader's on another.' Li......
-
Griffin v. Doss, No. 8555
...while performing an act for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee is usually compensable. '' Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, Mo., 407 S.W.2d 894, 897--898(6). This rule is applicable to situations involving transportation of the employee by the employer as an incident of the employment......
-
EI Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Faupel, C.A. No. 03A-04-014-RRC.
...if this was a federal or state agency). 72. Monette, 579 So.2d at 197. 73. Id. 74. Monette, 579 So.2d at 197. 75. Lampkin v. Harzfeld's, 407 S.W.2d 894, 895 76. Lampkin, 407 S.W.2d at 895-896. 77. Id at 896. 78. Lampkin, 407 S.W.2d at 897. 79. Id. 80. Lampkin, 407 S.W.2d at 897. 81. Id. 82.......