Myers v. Strauss
| Decision Date | 31 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23936 |
| Citation | 264 S.W. 801 |
| Parties | MYERS v. STRAUSS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Motion for Rehearing Denied August 27, 1924.
E. H Wayman and McLaran & Garesche, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
A & J. F. Lee and Joseph Renard, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiff while in the employ of defendant in his home as cook received a fall from which she sustained personal injuries. She seeks to recover damages therefor which she lays at the sum of $ 10,000.
The kitchen and pantry where plaintiff worked were connected by a door. The pantry floor was about 10 inches lower than the kitchen floor. In the threshold of the door there was a stone which was level with the kitchen floor. In going from the kitchen to the pantry it was necessary to pass over this doorstone and step down to the pantry floor. According to plaintiff's testimony, the stone was worn off in the center and slanted down towards the pantry; it was worn smooth and was 'slick like glass.'
On the occasion of plaintiff's injury she had started from the kitchen to the pantry with a plate of tomatoes. When she reached the door and was standing with both feet on the doorstone, she took hold of the doorframe with one hand preparatory to stepping down; suddenly her feet shot out from under her and she fell on her back out into the pantry 2 or 3 feet from the door. She was 38 years of age, and weighed 212 pounds.
Plaintiff entered defendant's employ November 11, 1920, and received the injuries complained of December 5th next following. During the interim she went from kitchen to pantry and back, over the doorstone in question, from 36 to 48 times each day. Once a day she swept it; and twice a week she washed it. After her fall she continued in defendant's service 8 days longer and continued to walk back and forth over the doorsill as theretofore. She never slipped while walking over the stone but the one time. During her stay in defendant's home she saw members of his family and employes other than herself going over the stone daily, and never saw any of them slip. She never at any time said anything to defendant or his wife about the stone being slick; it does not appear from her testimony that it had ever occurred to her before her fall that that condition was so pronounced as to make it dangerous to walk over the stone.
Plaintiff called as a witness a laundress who had been in defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial