Stroud v. Booth Cold Storage Co.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 19284.,19284. |
| Citation | 285 S.W. 165 |
| Parties | STROUD v. BOOTH COLD STORAGE CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. H. Killoren, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Luther E. Stroud against the Booth Cold Storage Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, Frank A. Mohr, and W. E. Moser, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Mark D. Eagleton, Everett J. Hullverson, and Harry S. Rooks, all of St. Louis. for respondent.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while operating one of defendant's elevators in its building. The petition pleads general negligence, and plaintiff seeks to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The petition alleges that, while plaintiff was operating said elevator of defendant, he had nothing to do with the care of said elevator or its machinery, and was ignorant of the details of construction and mechanism thereof;. that, while said plaintiff was engaged in his work, he stopped said elevator below and near the fifth floor; that, while the elevator was so stopped, and while plaintiff's left foot was projecting beyond said car and its platform, the elevator suddenly, unexpectedly, and in an extremely unusual manner, and without the control cables being moved or touched, started in motion as a result of negligence and carelessness on the part of defendant, causing plaintiff's foot to be caught and injured; that plaintiff does not know the cause or causes that operated to bring about the above-mentioned extraordinary movement of said elevator; that the same was not caused by plaintiff's negligence; and that all information with respect to the mechanism is in the possession of defendant. The answer was a general denial. After defendant's request for a directed verdict had been refused, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was entered thereon, and defendant has appealed.
The evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff discloses that this elevator, on which he had been working for about two weeks prior to his accident, was operated between the first and thirteenth floors of defendant's building, and was used for carrying freight. -it was controlled by means of a steel cable, located in one corner of the elevator car. When it was desired that the elevator should ascend, the cable was pulled downward. If it was desired that the elevator should descend, it was pulled upward. Near this steel cable was a hemp rope suspended alongside the steel cable. When the elevator would be stopped by pulling the steel cable, either up or down as the case might be, the operator would then pull the safety rope or hemp rope for the purpose of placing the operation or mechanism of the cable in neutral. The cable could also be stopped by use of the hemp rope alone. The steel cable was endless, and ran around a pulley or shaft, which was a part of the mechanism in a little house on the roof of the building. An electric motor was located in this little house at the top of the elevator shaft, and, when the cable was moved, this would bring into operation certain electric machinery and cause the motor to revolve.
About two weeks prior to plaintiff's injury he was assigned to the duty of operating this elevator. Plaintiff would stand in the corner and face the opening of the elevator. The control cable would then be at his right side. He was instructed how to operate the elevator, and testified that he understood fully how to operate it. At the time he was injured, he brought the car to a stop near the fifth floor by following the usual method and then pulling the safety rope to make it safe. lie then looked over the gate to see if there were any trucks there, and left one foot extending over the edge of the elevator, when suddenly the elevator started without any warning, or without plaintiff touching any of the ropes, and injured plaintiff's left foot. Plaintiff did not know what caused it to start or anything about the condition or mechanism of the elevator.
About three or four days prior to the accident, plaintiff had had some trouble in the operation of the elevator. He reported this fact to the superintendent, and was later informed that the elevator had been fixed.
The evidence offered on the part of the defendant tended to show that the elevator was in perfect mechanical condition before and after the accident,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hesemann v. May Dept. Stores Co.
...supra; Dougherty v. The Mo. R.R. Co., supra; Heidt v. Peoples Motorbus Co., supra; Petrie v. Kaufman & Baer Co., supra; Stroud v. Booth Cold Storage Co., 285 S.W. 165; Bartlett v. Pontiac Realty Co., 31 S.W. (2d) 279. (2) The court did not err in giving plaintiff's instruction No. 1. It was......
-
Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.
...Mo. 659, 108 S.W. 561; Blanton v. Dold, 109 Mo. 64, 18 S.W. 1149; Kneemiller v. American Car & Foundry Co., 291 S.W. 506; Stroud v. Booth Cold Storage Co., 285 S.W. 165; Miller v. Walsh Fire Clay Products Co., 282 S.W. 141; Kuether v. Kansas City L. & P. Co., 276 S.W. 105; Joyce v. Mo. & Ka......
-
Grindstaff v. Goldberg Structural Steel Co.
...668; State v. Allen, 289 S.W. 583; Miller v. Fire Clay Products Co., 282 S.W. 141; Daggett v. Car & Fdy. Co., 284 S.W. 855; Stroud v. Cold Storage Co., 285 S.W. 165; Smith v. Ry., Light. Heat & Power Co., 276 S.W. 607; Snyder v. Elec. Mfg. Co., 223 S.W. 911; Ware v. Northwestern Mach. Co., ......
-
Bass v. Nooney Co., 63926
...Co., 318 Mo. 350, 300 S.W. 515 (1927); Bartlett v. Pontiac Realty Co., 224 Mo.App. 1234, 31 S.W.2d 279 (1930); Stroud v. Booth Cold Storage Co., 285 S.W. 165 (Mo.App.1926). res ipsa loquitur. Defendants deny that the doctrine mentioned has any application here. No valid objection to the app......