Start v. National Newspapers Ass'n

• Decision Date: 11 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14736.,14736.
• Citation: 253 S.W. 42
• Parties: START v. NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS' ASS'N.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

253 S.W. 42

START v. NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS' ASS'N.

No. 14736.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 11, 1923.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. A. Lucas, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Sarah J. Start against the National Newspapers' Association. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank M. Lowe, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Rader & Rader and Gamble, Trusty & Pugh, all, of Kansas City, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $4,600, and defendant has appealed. This is the second appeal of the case. See Start v. National Newspaper Association (Mo. App.) 222 S. W. 870.

The facts show that defendant was conducting a land show in Convention Hall in Kansas City, Mo. It had in the hall an incline plane or platform where patrons descended from one portion of the building to another. Plaintiff on the evening of March 6, 1912, was descending this platform when she slipped and slid down the platform, catching the heel of her shoe in a crack, causing her to fall to her injury. The crack was caused by a structural defect, in that the boards that formed the incline plane or platform where plaintiff fell were not joined as closely together, as they should have been, with the floor below.

Defendant insists that its instruction in the nature of a demurrer should have been given. The negligence alleged in the petition is that the platform was—

"* * * built with a steep downward pitch and was not provided with sufficient or suitable cleats or other footholds, nor handholds nor railings along the side thereof, and the floor thereof was slippery, and there was a hole at the lower end of said incline at or near the place of its union with said temporary floor; which conditions were apt to cause persons using said incline to be thrown down and injured as defendants and each of them well knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care might have known at all times mentioned herein, in time so that by the exercise of reasonable care they and each of them could have remedied said conditions before the injuries to plaintiff hereinafter alleged, but they and each of them nevertheless failed to remedy the same."

It Is contended that the slippery condition was caused by snow and ice being tracked into the building and onto the incline; that this condition of slipperiness had not been shown to exist longer than an hour; that there was no evidence of actual knowledge of the slippery condition on the part of the defendant or its agents and that the existence of the slippery condition for an hour's time was not sufficient length of time to impart constructive notice to the defendant. Plaintiff testified that if she had not slipped she would not have fallen. However, these contentions may be all true, and yet plaintiff could make out under the petition a case of actionable negligence against the defendant.

It was negligent for defendant to have permitted the hole to exist. The Supreme Court long ago held that where an unforeseen event concurring in point of time with an act of negligence co-cperates with the latter to produce...