Orcutt v. Century Building Co.

• Decision Date: 22 February 1907
• Parties: ORCUTT, Appellant, v. CENTURY BUILDING COMPANY et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

99 S.W. 1062

201 Mo. 424

ORCUTT, Appellant, v. CENTURY BUILDING COMPANY et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division One

February 22, 1907

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Daniel G. Taylor Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

John A Gilliam and Luther Ely Smith for appellant.

(1) Both parties defendant were liable if there was any negligence. Carterville v. Cook, 129 Ill. 152; McGregor v. Reid, 178 Ill. 471; Griffin v Manice, 166 N.Y. 197; Beidler v. Branshaw, 200 Ill. 425, 102 Ill.App. 187; Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. (N.Y.) 343; Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 99; Lottman v. Barnett, 62 Mo. 169; Bell v Josselyn, 3 Gray 309; Martin v. Benoist, 20 Mo.App. 270. Under some circumstances the omission of an act which one ought to do may amount to a positive misfeasance. Ellis v. McNaughton, 76 Mich. 237; Baird v Shipman, 132 Ill. 16; Campbell v. Sugar Co., 62 Me. 566; Mechem, Agency, sec. 572. The evidence showed that defendants had not complied with the ordinance in regard to inspection, and tended to show a woeful lack of proper inspection. Wendler v. House Furn. Co., 165 Mo. 527; Sluder v. Railroad, 88 S.W. 648; Schlereth v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 516; Hartford Deposit Co. v. Sollitt, 172 Ill. 222; Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430; Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207; Ray, Neg. Pass. Carriers, secs. 96-97-98-99. And the trust company having entered upon the performance of running this building and making repairs at its discretion, was liable for misfeasance in not doing the duties imposed by law. Kenney v. Lane (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S.W. 1063; Osborne v. Morgan, 130 Mass. 102. Whether defendant made proper inspection is for the jury. Tateman v. Railroad, 96 Mo.App. 454; Coontz v. Railroad, 121 Mo. 658; Siela v. Railroad, 82 Mo. 430; Nicholds v. Plate Glass Co., 126 Mo. 658; Dedrick v. Railroad, 21 Mo.App. 436; Bartley v. Trorlicht, 49 Mo.App. 227; Gutridge v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 529. Freight elevator highest practicable care: Beidler v. Branshaw, 102 Ill.App. 187, 200 Ill. 425. Passenger elevator: Bldg. Co. v. Nelson, 197 Ill. 334; Becker v. Lincoln R. E. Bldg. Co., 73 S.W. 581. Freight train: Erwin v. Railroad, 94 Mo.App. 296; McGee v. Railroad, 92 Mo. 208; Wagner v. Railroad, 97 Mo. 512; Whitehead v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 263; Guffey v. Railroad, 53 Mo.App. 462; Wait v. Railroad, 65 S.W. 1028; Hardin v. Railroad, 77 S.W. 431; Railroad v. Jordan, 76 S.W. 145. Care commensurate with the danger: Railroad v. Fort, 80 S.W. 434. Violation of ordinance prima facie negligence: Giles v. Diamond State Iron Co., 7 Houst. 453. Failure to comply with ordinance negligence per se: Wendler v. People's H. F. Co., 165 Mo. 527; Holden v. Railroad, 108 Mo.App. 665, 84 S.W. 133; Jackson v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 621; Hutchinson v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 246; Weller v. Railroad, 164 Mo. 180; Murry v. Railroad, 101 Mo. 236; Brannock v. Elmore, 144 Mo. 55; Shearman & Redfield on Neg., sec. 13. Statutory duty burden on defendant: Ditch Co. v. Zimmerman, 4 Colo.App. 78; Sewell v. Moore, 166 Pa. 570; Canal & M. Co. v. Dowell, 17 Colo. 376; Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N.Y. 310; McRickard v. Flint, 114 N.Y. 228. Highest degree of care required in the construction, repairs and operation of an elevator. Becker v. Trust Co., 174 Mo. 246, 73 S.W. 581; Lee v. Publishers, Knapp & Co., 155 Mo. 634; Mitchell v. Marker, 62 F. 140; Deposit Co. v. Sollitt, 172 Ill. 222; Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430; Oberndorfer v. Pabst, 100 Wis. 513; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574; Hotel Co. v. Camp, 97 Ky. 424; Levy v. Campbell, 19 S.W. 440; Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207; Oberfelder v. Doran, 26 Neb. 118; Bank v. Morgolofski, 75 Md. 432; Ellis v. Waldron, 19 R. I. 369; 10 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 946 to 950; Hodges v. Percival, 132 Ill. 53; Riland v. Hirshler, 7 Pa. 384; Bldg. Assn. v. Lawson, 97 Tenn. 397; Ray on Imposed Obligations, secs. 96 to 101. Fall of elevator from breakage of machinery raises a presumption of negligence. Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574; Goodsell v. Tayloy, 41 Minn. 207; Griffin v. Manice, 166 N.Y. 197; Deposit Co. v. Sollitt, 172 Ill. 222; Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430; 10 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 946 to 949; McGregor v. Reid, 178 Ill. 471; Ray on Imposed Obligations, Personal, secs. 96 to 101; Minster v. Railroad, 53 Mo.App. 276; Miller v. Railroad, 5 Mo.App. 480; Hill v. Scott, 38 Mo.App. 374; Yerkes v. Packet Co., 7 Mo.App. 265; Sharp v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 104; Cambron v. Railroad, 165 Mo. 543. Carriers, whether by contract or general invitation, owe the same duties. 10 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 946, note 3. Violation of ordinance when pleaded and proven is negligence per se. The court cannot take such evidence from the jury. Hirst v. Ringen R. E. Co., 169 Mo. 194; Wendler v. People's H. F. Co., 165 Mo. 541; Goss v. Railroad, 57 Mo.App. 574; Weber v. Railroad, 45 Mo.App. 123; Weber v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 194; Bowman v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 333; Eswin v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 290; Schlereth v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 509; Huckshold v. Railroad, 90 Mo. 548; Weller v. Railroad, 120 Mo. 635. Same degree of care required of the operator of a freight train or a freight elevator as of a passenger train or passenger elevator. McGee v. Railroad, 92 Mo. 208; Railroad v. Horst, 93 U.S. 297; Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 450; Ellis v. Waldron, 19 R. I. 369; O. & M. R. W. Co. v. Dickson, 59 Ind. 321; Wait v. Railroad, 165 Mo. 621; Railroad v. Mahling, 30 Ill. 9; Dunn v. Railroad, 58 Me. 197; Penna. Co. v. Newmeyer, 129 Ind. 404; Dodge v. Steamship Co., 148 Mass. 218; Olds v. Railroad, 172 Mass. 77. (2) Instruction 4 given is extremely vicious. One vice of this instruction is that it excluded question of negligence or unskillfulness in the operation of the elevator; a second, that it requires only ordinary care; a third, that it requires the plaintiff to prove exactly what caused the elevator to fall. It needs no argument to show the error in this instruction, which covered the whole case, in excluding negligence or unskillfulness in operation. The doctrine of ordinary care therein stated was incorrect, and opposed to all the cases hereinbefore cited. Holding the plaintiff to prove exactly what caused the accident is opposed to the proper rule in every case of negligence where the jury have a right to draw a fair inference from the facts proven, or where more than one act of negligence is charged and more than one thing may contribute to the injury. Burger v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 245. Even if the jury do not all agree as to the exact cause of the injury, yet if they concur that there was negligence on the part of defendant, they should find for the plaintiff. Holden v. Railroad, 108 Mo.App. 665, 84 S.W. 133; Wacher v. Railroad, 108 Mo.App. 645. Where several proximate causes contribute to an accident, and each is an efficient cause without which the accident would not have happened, it may be attributed to all or any of these causes. Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N.Y. 83. Where it is impossible to show by direct evidence and with absolute certainty from what cause the occurrence proceeded, something was necessarily left to inference, not a merely speculative but a rational inference based upon all the circumstances of the case. Matteson v. Railroad, 35 N.Y. 490; Duerst v. St. Louis Stamp. Co., 163 Mo. 622. Instruction 5, as given, also says: "The court instructs the jury that the mere fact that the elevator in question fell on the occasion in question creates no presumption that said fall was due to any negligence on the part of said defendants." That is opposed to the entire doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and specifically in the teeth of too many cases to justify their citation, but some are: Railroad v. McIntyre (Tex. Civ. App.), 82 S.W. 346; Newcomb v. Railroad, 169 Mo. 424; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574; Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207; Griffin v. Manice, 166 N.Y. 197; Deposit Co. v. Sollitt, 172 Ill. 222; Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430; 10 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 946 to 949; McGregor v. Reid, 178 Ill. 471; Ray on Imp. Oblig. Personal, secs. 96 to 101; Minister v. Railroad, 53 Mo.App. 276; Miller v. Railroad, 5 Mo.App. 480; Hill v. Scott, 38 Mo.App. 374; Yerkes v. Packet Co., 7 Mo.App. 265; Sharp v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 104; Cambron v. Railroad, 165 Mo. 558. The fall of an elevator affords prima facie evidence of negligence. Gerlach v. Edelmeyer, 15 Jones and S. 292; Mullen v. St. John, 57 N.Y. 567; Thompson on Neg., sec. 1082; Kenney v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 576; Dowell v. Guthrie, 99 Mo. 664; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 671; Moberly v. Railroad, 98 Mo. 186; Rapp v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 428; Myers v. City of Kansas, 108 Mo. 487. Burden of disproving negligence on carrier. Allen v. Railroad, 183 Mo. 433; Blanton v. Dold, 109 Mo. 64; Redmon v. Railroad, 185 Mo. 1; Mooney v. Lumber Co., 154 Mass. 407; Lee v. Railroad (Mo.), 87 S.W. 23; Kelly v. Railroad, 87 S.W. 583; Posey v. Scoville, 10 F. 140; Smith v. Railroad, 18 F. 304; Griffin v. Railroad, 148 Mass. 143. Falling of a building, burden on defendant: Giles v. Diamond State Iron Co., 7 Houst. (Del.) 453; Mullen v. St. John, 57 N.Y. 567. Res ipsa loquitur: Hill v. Scott, 38 Mo.App. 374; Scott v. London & St. Cath. Dock Co., 3 Hurl. & C. 601; Czech v. Gen. Steam Nav. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 18; Trans. Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 134; Och v. Railroad, 130 Mo. 52; Kaples v. Orth, 61 Wis. 531; Minster v. Railroad, 53 Mo.App. 276; Cummings v. Furnace Co., 60 Wis. 603; Mulcairn's Admn. v. Janesville, 67 Wis. 24; Carroll v. Railroad, 99 Wis. 99; Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U.S. 551; Judson v. Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549, 29 L. R. A. 708. (3) Liability of agent: Ayles v. Railroad, 88 S.W. 1050; Clark & Skyles on Agency, secs. 594, 595; Lysley v. Clarke, 14 Eng. Law & Eq. 510; Perkins v. Smith, 1 Wils. 328; Mayer v. Bldg. Co., 104 Ala. 611; Brownell v....