Stocker v. City of Richmond Heights, 25126.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation132 S.W.2d 1116
Docket NumberNo. 25126.,25126.
PartiesANNA STOCKER, RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF RICHMOND HEIGHTS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT.
Decision Date07 November 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Hon. Peter T. Barrett, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Francis R. Stout for respondent.

(1) The petition states a cause of action and the evidence proved a cause of action against defendant. (a) A person for whom inherently dangerous work is done is liable, no matter what the nature of the relationship between such person and the person doing the work. (b) Negligence is not an essential element to create liability for damages due to blasting. Also, the defendant city would be liable if the defendant supervised the construction work, although this is not necessary to make the city liable for damages to third person's property. Taylor v. Walsh, 193 Mo. App. 516, 186 S.W. 527; Gilbert v. Evens and Howard Fire Brick Co., 214 Mo. App. 207, 260 S.W. 790; St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co. v. U.S. Fid. Co., 105 S.W. (2d) l.c. 21; 92 A.L.R., p. 741; Johnson v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co., 182 Mo. App. 349, 170 S.W. 456; Blackford v. Const. Co., 132 Mo. App. 157, 112 S.W. 287 (which in effect overrules Thurmond v. White Lime Ass'n, 125 Mo. App. 73, cited by appellant); Kink v. City, 71 Mo. 52. (c) It is not necessary to plead the ordinance under which the work was done. Devers v. Howard, 88 Mo. App. 253; Roy v. Kansas City, 204 Mo. App. 332, 224 S.W. 132; MacMurray-Judge Architectural Iron Co. v. City of St. Louis, 138 Mo. 608, 39 S.W. 467; Werth v. City of Springfield, 78 Mo. 107; 44 C.J. 476, sec. 2796; City of St. Louis v. Lang, 131 Mo. 412, 33 S.W. 54. (d) If necessary to plead an ordinance, evidence of it admitted without objection would cure the failure to plead it. R.S. Missouri 1929, sec. 822. (e) It was not necessary to prove the ordinance under which the work was done. Cases cited under 1 (c); 2 McQuillan on Municipal Corp. (2 Ed.), p. 196, sec. 219; Roy v. Kansas City, supra; Frazier v. City of Rockport, 199 Mo. App. 80, 202 S.W. 267; Leonard v. Sparks, 22 S.W., l.c. 902; Skinner-Kennedy v. Board of Education, 82 Mo. App. 541, 165 S.W. 835; City v. Lanigan, 10 S.W. 475. (f) The ordinance was proved. Respondent's Additional Abstract, p. 8; Appellant's Abstract, A-36, A-53. (g) It was not necessary to have an ordinance to authorize the city officials to secure an allotment from the Works Progress Administration to build the sewer. Haskins v. City of DeSoto, 35 S.W. (2d), l.c. 967; Windle v. City of Springfield, 8 S.W. (2d) 61; Schwabe v. Moore, 187 Mo. App. 74, 172 S.W. 1157; Vrooman v. City of St. Louis, 88 S.W. (2d) 189, l.c. 198; Vol. 9a, Federal Code Annotated, p. 989 et seq. on the powers and duties of Works Progress Administration. (h) If the actions of the city officials were ultra vires, that is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved. It was neither pleaded nor proved in this case. 44 C.J., p. 121, sec. 2224. (2) The motion to make more definite and certain was properly overruled: (a) As the petition stated the relationship between the defendant and the Works Progress Administration. (b) As the details of the damage were matters of evidence. Brunk v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 66 S.W. (2d), l.c. 903; State ex rel. Sappington v. American Surety Co., 41 S.W. (2d) 966; Herod v. St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Co., 299 S.W. 74; Cases cited under above three authorities. (3) Instructions of defendant 2, 3 and 4, as modified by the court, contained no error. (4) The appellant cannot complain of the measure of damages set out in Instruction No. 5. (a) If the same is error, it is invited error, and refused instruction No. 10 contains the same measure of damages. O'Brien v. Rindskopf (Mo.), 70 S.W. (2d) 1085; Greaves v. Kansas City Junior Orpheum Co., 80 S.W. (2d) 228; 5 C.J. Secundum, p. 205, sec. 1507c; Sutton v. Anderson (Mo. en banc), 31 S.W. (2d) 1026; 1 Houts, Missouri Pleading and Practice, p. 6675, sec. 362; Continental Cas. Co. v. Monarch Transp. Co., 23 S.W. (2d) 209; Harding v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 248 Mo. 663, 154 S.W. 711; Pope v. Mo. Pac. (Mo.), 175 S.W. 955; 4 C.J., p. 711, sec. 2624; St. John v. German-American Ins. Co., 107 Mo. App. 700, 82 S.W. 543; State ex rel. Sappington v. American Surety Co., supra; Hogan v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. (Mo.), 62 S.W. (2d) 856; Euler v. State Highway Comm., 55 S.W. (2d) 719, l.c. 721.

Philip A. Foley, L.A. Robertson and Leon M. Feigenbaum for appellant.

(1) Sec. 770, Specification 6, R.S. Mo. 1929; Sec. 774, R.S. Mo. 1929; Massey Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve, 48 S.W. (2d) 158; Bragg v. Specialty Shoe Co., 34 S.W. (2d) 184; Rositzky v. Rositzky, 46 S.W. (2d) 591; Hanson v. Neal et al., 215 Mo. 256, 114 S.W. 1073; Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716. The petition, on its face, shows that defendant City of Richmond Heights was guilty of no negligence from which its liability to plaintiff resulted. Thurmond v. Ashgrove White Lime Assn., 125 Mo. App. 73; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878. (2) Kramer v. Power Co., 311 Mo. 369. (3) Section 770, Specification 6, R.S. Mo. 1929; Section 774, R.S. Mo. 1929; Massey Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve, 48 S.W. (2d) 158; Bragg v. Specialty Shoe Co., 34 S.W. (2d) 184; Rositzky v. Rositzky, 46 S.W. (2d) 591; Hanson v. Neal et al., 215 Mo. 256, 114 S.W. 1073. (4) The court erred in overruling defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence offered at the close of plaintiff's case in chief. Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Thurmond v. Ashgrove White Lime Ass'n, 125 Mo. App. 73; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716. (5) Section 770, Specification 6, R.S. Mo. 1929; Section 774, R.S. Mo. 1929; Massey Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve, 48 S.W. (2d) 158; Bragg v. Specialty Shoe Co., 34 S.W. (2d) 184; Rositzky v. Rositzky, 46 S.W. (2d) 591; Hanson v. Neal et al., 215 Mo. 256, 114 S.W. 1073; Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716; Thurmond v. Ashgrove White Lime Ass'n, 125 Mo. App. 73; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878. (6) Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716; Thurmond v. Ashgrove White Lime Ass'n, 125 Mo. App. 73; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878. Because the petition is not sufficient upon which to base a verdict or judgment. Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716; Thurmond v. Ashgrove White Lime Ass'n, 125 Mo. App. 73; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878. Because upon the whole record the judgment is erroneous, Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878. Because there is no evidence to support the judgment. Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878; St. Louis Tr. Co. v. Bambrick, 149 Mo. 560, 51 S.W. 706; Rosen v. Kroger Groc. & Baking Co., 5 S.W. (2d) 649; Iven v. Winston Bros. Co., 48 S.W. (2d) 125; McGrath v. Heman Const. Co., 183 Mo. App. 522; Richie v. State Bd. of Agriculture, 297 S.W. 435, 219 Mo. App. 90. (7) Boyer v. General Oil Products, 78 S.W. (2d) 450; St. Louis Tr. Co. v. Bambrick, 149 Mo. 560, 51 S.W. 706; Rosen v. Kroger Groc. & Baking Co., 5 S.W. (2d) 649; Iven v. Winston Bros. Co., 48 S.W. (2d) 125; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878; McGrath v. Heman Const. Co., 183 Mo. App. 522; Richie v. State Bd. of Agriculture, 219 Mo. App. 90, 297 S.W. 435. (8) The court erred in not holding, as a matter of law, that the defendant was not liable to plaintiff on the allegations contained in plaintiff's petition and the evidence adduced pursuant thereto. Title 15, U.S.C.A., secs. 1-2 and 721-728; Brooks v. City of Seattle, 74 Pac. (2d) 1008; Taylor et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Pac. (2d) 242; Larchmont v. Manaroneck, 249 App. Div. 741, 291 N.Y.S. 716; Sec. 6917, R.S. Mo. 1929; Bigelow v. City of Springfield, 178 Mo. App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; Faust v. Pope, 132 Mo. App. 287, 111 S.W. 878. (9) The court erred in reading and giving to the jury instructions marked "Defendant's Instructions 3 and 4," as modified by the court, over the objections and exceptions of defendant. Sweigert v. The Hannibal & St. Joseph Ry. Co., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 13, 1951
    ...River Power Co., 174 Iowa 23, 27, 156 N.W. 188, L.R.A.1916D, 101; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324, 332; Stocker v. City of Richmond Heights, 235 Mo.App. 277, 283, 132 S.W.2d 1116; Wendt v. Yant Construction Co., 125 Neb. 277, 279, 249 N.W. 599; Louden v. City of Cincinnati, 90 Ohio St. 144,......
  • Smith v. Aldridge, 30776
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 17, 1962
    ...had cast rocks or debris thereon. * * *' Summers v. Tavern Rock Sand Co., Mo., 315 S.W.2d 201, 203. And see Stocker v. City of Richmond Heights, 235 Mo.App. 277, 132 S.W.2d 1116; Taylor v. Walsh, 193 Mo.App. 516, 186 S.W. 527; Johnson v. Kansas City Terminal R. Co., 182 Mo.App. 349, 170 S.W......
  • Brown v. L. S. Lunder Const. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 10, 1942
    ...24 N.E.2d 228;Watson v. Mississippi River Power Co., 1916, 174 Iowa 23, 156 N.W. 188, L.R.A.1916D, 101;Stocker v. City of Richmond Heights, 1939, 235 Mo.App. 277, 132 S.W.2d 1116;Wendt v. Yant Const. Co., 1933, 125 Neb. 277, 249 N.W. 599;Bluhm v. Blanck & Gargaro, Inc., 1939, 62 Ohio App. 4......
  • Summers v. Tavern Rock Sand Co., 46381
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 14, 1958
    ...premises and liability irrespective of negligence quite as if the blasting had cast rocks or debris thereon. Stocker v. City of Richmond Heights, 235 Mo.App. 277, 132 S.W.2d 1116; Taylor v. Walsh, 193 Mo.App. 516, 186 S.W. 527; Johnson v. Kansas City Terminal R. Co., 182 Mo.App. 349, 170 S.......
  • 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