Manche v. St. Louis Basket & Box Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 23499.,23499. |
| Citation | 262 S.W. 1021 |
| Parties | MANCHE v. ST. LOUIS BASKET & BOX CO. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Benj. 3. Klene, Judge.
Action by Joseph M. Manche against the St. Louis Basket & Box Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
E. Wayman and McLaren & Garesche, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Kelley, Starke & Moser, of St. Louis, for respondent.
Action in damages for personal injuries. At the close of all the evidence the jury returned a verdict for defendant. From the judgment rendered thereon plaintiff" has appealed. The amount claimed as damages fixes our jurisdiction.
Plaintiff was in defendant's employ as a veneer matcher, and claimed to have been injured by reason of the breaking of a pine board about one inch thick and about one foot wide by three feet long. The board broke under the combined weight of himself and some material which he was carrying at the time. This board constituted part of the top of a platform about three feet wide and six feet long and ten or twelve inches in height. The boards were nailed crosswise on runners or skids extending the length of the platform. The platform had no wheels, and, when it was desired to move it, it was raised and a wheeled truck was run under it. The platform had a very small amount of material on it at the time of the accident. It had been left in a position where it completely obstructed plaintiff's passage to a corner of the room where was piled certain material required by plaintiff in his work. The evidence tends to show that the board was defective and broke because of a large knot in it about three by five inches, the longer dimension being across the board. " Plaintiff had stepped on the platform in going after the material he wanted. The platform was not placed in the obstructing position by plaintiff. There were several platforms in the room where he worked, and he used the same whenever he had material to move.
On cross-examination plaintiff testified that the platforms were furnished by defendant for the purpose of moving material. He did not see the knot in the board when he stepped on the platform the first time. It was broad daylight. He made no effort to move the platform out of his way in order to have a clear passage. He said he could have secured a wheeled truck and moved it out of his way, but that he could not have moved it with his hands.
Henry Dryoff testified to seeing plaintiff fall and to the broken board and the situation of the platform. Plaintiff's brother and two physicians testified concerning his injuries. Their nature and extent are here immaterial.
At the close of plaintiff's case defendant offered an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. This was overruled, and defendant offered evidence touching plaintiff's injuries, and offered two other witnesses who testified as to the weight of the platform; that it could readily have been moved by hand; that there was plenty of room to move it out of the way; that said platform was not furnished to be walked upon ; and that it was not so used. It is unnecessary to detail such testimony, since we cannot now consider it. It is sufficient to say that the defendant's evidence had no tendency to strengthen plaintiff's case. Defendant successfully renewed its demurrer at the close of all the evidence, and the jury returned its verdict accordingly.
In substance it is charged in the petition that defendant negligently kept and maintained a defective platform over which it was necessary for plaintiff to pass in the performance of his work. The answer was a general denial. The sole question for our determination now is whether plaintiff made out a case for submission to the jury. In passing on this question we must disregard all evidence offered by defendant which tends to disprove the facts which plaintiff's evidence tends to establish, and take as true all the evidence offered by plaintiff.
We fully agree with the trial judge that plaintiff made no case for the jury. We will assume that the platform in question was defective and was not reasonably safe for the purpose of being walked upon. The petition alleged that it was necessary for plaintiff to pass over said platform in the performance of his duties. The plaintiff's evidence fails to show this. On the contrary, it shows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burch v. Railway Co.
...Mansfield v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 242 S.W. 400; Rutledge v. Ry. Co., 110 Mo. 312; Degonia v. Railroad, 224 Mo. 564; Manche v. Basket & Box Co., 262 S.W. 1021; Railroad v. Conarty, 23 U.S. 243; Lang v. N.Y. Central, 255 U.S. 455; C.B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Murray, 277 Pac. 703. (4) When ......
-
Messing v. Judge & Dolph Drug Co.
...260; Removich v. Construction Co., 264 Mo. 43; Howard v. Railway Co., 173 Mo. 524; Hester v. Packing Co., 84 Mo. App. 451; Manche v. Box & Basket Co., 262 S.W. 1021. (2) The law will not permit a recovery where the plaintiff by his own negligence has contributed to produce the injury from w......
-
Crane v. Foundry Co.
...sufficient length of time to charge defendant with constructive knowledge thereof. Wilson v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 5 S.W. (2d) 19; Manche v. Box Co., 262 S.W. 1021; Jones v. Gillioz, 9 S.W. (2d) 91; Bailey v. Dry Goods Co., 149 Mo. App. 656; Oker v. Const. Co., 158 Mo. App. 213; Bennett v. Lime......
-
Schleappe v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... length of time before the accident to charge defendant with ... notice and knowledge. Haggard v. McGrew Coal Co., ... 200 S.W. 1072; Manche v. St. Louis B. & B. Co., 262 ... S.W. 1021; Bello v. Stuever, 44 S.W.2d 619; ... Blankenship v. St. L. Pub. Serv. Co., 71 S.W.2d 723; ... M. K. & ... ...