Russell v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., No. 3154.

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtCox
Citation245 S.W. 590
PartiesRUSSELL v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.
Decision Date06 December 1922
Docket NumberNo. 3154.
245 S.W. 590
RUSSELL
v.
ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.
No. 3154.
Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.
December 6, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.

Action by A. B. Russell against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wright & Ruffin, of Springfield, for appellant.

W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, and Mann & Mann, of Springfield, for respondent.

COX, P. J.


Action for damages for personal injuries. At the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony on the ground that the petition did not state a cause of action. This objection was sustained, which resulted in an involuntary nonsuit being taken, and on the refusal of the court to set the same aside the plaintiff appealed.

The petition alleges that plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a boilermaker helper and engaged in the repair of an engine; that his duties required him to go inside of the fire box of the engine to assist in its repair; that defendant had installed an electric light in said fee box to enable Plaintiff and others to see; that at 2 o'clock a. m. of October 23, 1020, while engaged in his work, said electric light bulb exploded and burst into fragments, and some parts of it were driven into plaintiff's eye and greatly injured it. These allegations of the petition were followed by a paragraph describing plaintiff's suffering and expenses. After that the following appears:

"Plaintiff further states that defendant, its agents, servants, and employees were negligent in that they failed to furnish to the plaintiff a reasonable safe place within which to work. Plaintiff further states that by reason of the premises and of the negligence aforesaid he is damaged in the sum of $5,000."

This petition is objected to on the ground that it does not charge any negligence, either specific or general, against defendant. Further, that if it can be said that the petition does charge negligence, generally, it is still insufficient to state a cause of action because all it alleged is that the electric light bulb exploded and proof of that fact would not make a prima facie case against defendant; that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to the fret that an electric bulb exploded under the circumstances as alleged in this petition.

The appellant contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does apply in this case, and that all it was necessary for plaintiff to allege and prove to put the defendant on its defense was that the defendant furnished the light bulb and that it exploded.

It will be observed that the petition does not, in direct terms, charge that the explosion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 30031.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1932
    ...& Co., 286 Mo. 317; Spindler v. American Exp. Co., 232 S.W. 690; Yarbrough v. Packing Co., 231 S.W. 72; Russell v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590; Ryan v. Leeds, 249 S.W. 685; Compton v. Const. Co., 287 S.W. 574; Clark v. Wheelock, 293 S.W. 456; Nelson v. Heinz, supra. (10) This instruct......
  • Adam Hat Stores, Inc. v. Kansas City, No. 46704
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1958
    ...facie could not have occurred but for negligence on the part of the defendant.' See also Russell v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., Mo.App., 245 S.W. 590, Does the evidence in this case reasonably warrant an inference that the water Page 601 main broke due to negligence and that the negligence w......
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 34710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...extinguishing of fires or the cleaning of streets. Kapros v. Pierce Oil Corp., 324 Mo. 992; State v. Cox, 298 Mo. 427; Russel v. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 620; Grindstaff v. Goldberg, 40 S.W. (2d) 702; Jenny v. Brooklyn, 24 N.E. 274; Allied Realty Co. v. Philadelphi......
  • Henneke v. Gasconade Power Co., No. 19833.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 26, 1941
    ...Gas Co., 131 S.W. (2d) 354, 359; Removich v. Construction Co., 264 Mo. 43, 173 S.W. 686, 689, 690; Russell v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590, 591. (b) The evidence as a whole fails to show negligence on part of defendant. (2) The court erred in giving plaintiff's requested Instructi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 30031.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1932
    ...& Co., 286 Mo. 317; Spindler v. American Exp. Co., 232 S.W. 690; Yarbrough v. Packing Co., 231 S.W. 72; Russell v. St. L.-S.F. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590; Ryan v. Leeds, 249 S.W. 685; Compton v. Const. Co., 287 S.W. 574; Clark v. Wheelock, 293 S.W. 456; Nelson v. Heinz, supra. (10) This instruct......
  • Adam Hat Stores, Inc. v. Kansas City, No. 46704
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1958
    ...facie could not have occurred but for negligence on the part of the defendant.' See also Russell v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., Mo.App., 245 S.W. 590, Does the evidence in this case reasonably warrant an inference that the water Page 601 main broke due to negligence and that the negligence w......
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 34710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...extinguishing of fires or the cleaning of streets. Kapros v. Pierce Oil Corp., 324 Mo. 992; State v. Cox, 298 Mo. 427; Russel v. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 620; Grindstaff v. Goldberg, 40 S.W. (2d) 702; Jenny v. Brooklyn, 24 N.E. 274; Allied Realty Co. v. Philadelphi......
  • Henneke v. Gasconade Power Co., No. 19833.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 26, 1941
    ...Gas Co., 131 S.W. (2d) 354, 359; Removich v. Construction Co., 264 Mo. 43, 173 S.W. 686, 689, 690; Russell v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., 245 S.W. 590, 591. (b) The evidence as a whole fails to show negligence on part of defendant. (2) The court erred in giving plaintiff's requested Instructi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT