Rosebrough v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 6775.,6775. |
| Citation | Rosebrough v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 215 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. App. 1948) |
| Parties | ROSEBROUGH v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Division No. 1, Jasper County; Walter E. Bailey, Judge.
"Not to be Published in State Reports".
Action by Shelby Rosebrough against Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., a corporation, and W. R. Harrison to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in fall on stairway of the corporation's store.From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the corporation appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Paul E. Bradley and George W. Wise, both of Joplin, for appellant.
Burden & Shortridge, of Joplin, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in slipping and falling on the stairway of defendant's, Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., store.The action was filed in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri, against Montgomery Ward & Company and W. R. Harrison, manager of the store.The cause was tried before a jury and a verdict returned for plaintiff and against defendant, Montgomery Ward & Company, for $1100.00, and against plaintiff and in favor of defendant, W. R. Harrison.Judgment was rendered on the verdict and defendant, Montgomery Ward & Company, perfected its appeal to this court.
Plaintiff bases his cause of action upon the negligence of the defendant, Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., in failing to provide its customers with a reasonably safe condition of its premises in that it suffered and permitted its stairway leading from the main floor of the store to the basement thereof to remain in a dangerous and slippery condition, caused by oil being spilled thereon, which oiled condition made the steps unsafe and dangerous to the plaintiff going upon the property.Plaintiff pleaded the dangerous condition of the stairs was known to the defendant at the time and not to the plaintiff; that plaintiff slipped upon the oiled stairs and was injured, which injuries were caused as a direct and proximate result of defendant's negligence.The defendant answered that the condition of the steps was obvious and apparent and, if plaintiff fell, it was due to his own negligence in not observing where he was going and that plaintiff was warned by the defendant of the dangerous condition.
There is but one issue relied upon by appellant for reversal in this case and that is that the lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence and also in overruling appellant's motion to set aside the verdict and judgment because the dangerous condition of the steps was open and obvious and, if plaintiff fell, it was due to his own negligence in not seeing and observing the dangerous condition.
We here state such facts, from the evidence, as are necessary for the determination of the issue raised.On May 3rd, 1947, defendant, Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., operated a retail store in Joplin, Missouri, of which W. R. Harrison was manager.The store contained a flight of wooden steps descending from the main floor to the basement in a westerly direction.The stairs were about thirty feet long and eight feet wide, the top being to the east and the bottom to the west.There were had rails on the north and south sides of the stairs and newel posts at the foot.The stair steps were of dark color — one of defendant's witnesses said brown.There was a large 200 watt light in a frosted globe over the steps.
Shortly before plaintiff's injuries, some customer purchased a gallon jug of turpentine and a gallon jug of linseed oil and in going up the steps from the basement, some six or seven steps from the bottom, hit the jugs together and broke the jug containing the linseed oil, spilling it on the steps.It seems that the oil was spilled on the south side but it ran across to the north side and down the steps.The testimony does not show whether it reached the floor or not, but the oil spread over most of the steps from the sixth or seventh to the bottom.The office was notified by one of the clerks that the oil had been spilled on the steps and immediately thereafter a Negro porter was sent to mop up and clean the steps.The porter testified that he went immediately and was there in two or three minutes after he was called.Defendant's witnesses testified that they warned customers not to go up or come down the steps, telling them they were slippery and dangerous.The evidence showed that the linseed oil spilled was a liquid of light brownish color.One witnesses said it was orange brown and made the steps wet.One of defendant's witnesses said that it made the steps look like the liquid they used in cleaning the steps.According to the testimony the porter had cleaned one or two of the steps before plaintiff was injured.About five o'clock in the afternoon of May 3rd, 1947, the plaintiff, Shelby Rosebrough, together with his wife, one William Ford, a brother-in-law and Ford's wife, came to the defendant's store to do some shopping.The evidence showed they entered the store on the main floor, went directly to the head of the stairs leading to the basement, and there the women separated and went back into the dry goods department and the men proceeded to go down the stairway to the basement.We here set out the questions to the plaintiff and his answers concerning what took place in the store:
On cross-examination the following questions and answers were given by the plaintiff:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Myers v. Karchmer
...for instructions; * * *.' (Italics ours.) And see Oganaso v. Mellow, 356 Mo. 228, 201 S.W.2d 365, 366; Rosebrough v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 295, 298; Palmer v. Security Ins. Co., Mo.App., 263 S.W.2d 210, 213(3); 42 V.A.M.S. Supreme Court Rule While defendants' motion for......
-
Stofer v. Montgomery Ward & Company
...and for that reason no negligence was shown. Such being the case, the issue would be for the jury." Accord, Rosebrough v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Mo.App., 1948, 215 S.W.2d 295. This court is of the opinion that plaintiff's presently unrebutted evidence, viewed in the light of Missouri law, d......
-
Rothweiler v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...here for our review. Ashton v. Buchholz, Mo.Sup., 221 S.W.2d 496; Oganaso v. Mellow, 356 Mo. 228, 201 S.W.2d 365; Rosebrough v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 295. There is no doubt that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to a situation where a passenger is injured as the......
-
Rothweiler v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...here for our review. Ashton v. Buchholz, Mo.Sup., 221 S.W.2d 496; Oganaso v. Mellow, 356 Mo. 228, 2015 S.W.2d 365; Rosebrough v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 295. is no doubt that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to a situation where a passenger is injured as the resu......