Wright v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1941
• Citation: 157 S.W.2d 582,236 Mo.App. 872
• Parties: T. J. WRIGHT, RESPONDENT, v. KANSAS CITY STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

157 S.W.2d 582

236 Mo.App. 872

T. J. WRIGHT, RESPONDENT, v. KANSAS CITY STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

December 1, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Emory H. Wright Judge.

Judgment reversed.

Leo T Schwartz and Maurice J. O'Sullivan for appellant.

Philip M. Wilson and O. H. Stevens of Counsel.

(1) The evidence was not sufficient to establish a submissible case. The court erred in refusing defendant's demurrer (Instruction "B," p. 520) at the close of all of the evidence and erred in the theory of submission of the case to the jury and in giving plaintiff's Instruction one and refusing defendant's Instructions "P," "L," "Q," "U," "V," and "W." (a) The facts reviewed. 1. The substantive rights of the parties are governed by Kansas law. Sec. 384 Mo. Ann. Restatement of Conflict of Laws; Mosby v. Manhattan Oil Co. (C. C. A. 8), 52 F.2d 364. 2. The lex fori governs sufficiency of the evidence. Otey v. Midland Valley R. R. Co., 108 Kan. 755, 197 P. 203; Sec. 595, Mo. Ann. Restatement of Conflict of Laws. 3. Substantial and more than a mere scintilla of evidence is required for submission of a case to the jury. Trans-American Freight Lines v. Marcrome Art. M. Co. (Mo. App.), 150 S.W.2d 547, 551; Wallingford v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n, 337 Mo. 1147, 88 S.W. 2d 361; S. S. Kresge v. Kenney, 86 F.2d 651, 653; Matthews v. Mo. P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 266 S.W. 1020; Eastin v. Phillips Pet. Co. (Mo. App.), 57 S.W.2d 547, 551. 4. The presumptions on which plaintiff's case rested to show control by defendant vanished on introduction of positive, uncontradicted testimony to the contrary. No issue remained to submit to the jury. Sowers v. Howard (Mo.), 139 S.W.2d 897, 901, Subds. 3, 4, 5; Halverson v. Blosser, 101 Kan. 683, 685, 168 P. 863; Flack v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 285 Mo. 28, 224 S.W. 415, 421; Lappin v. Prebe (Mo.), 131 S.W.2d 511, 513; Water v. Hays (Mo. App.), 130 S.W.2d 220; State ex rel. v. Hostetter, 344 Mo. 443, 126 S.W.2d 1164; Freeman v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 101 Kan. 516, 521, 167 P. 1062; Zeeb v. Bahnmaier, 103 Kan. 599, 176 P. 326; Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Wells (Tex.), 151 S.W.2d 927; Allison v. Stivers, 81 Kan. 713, 106 P. 996; Nelson v. Martinson (C. C. A. 8), 212 F. 912, 916; Texas P. Ry. Co. v. Archibald, 170 U.S. 665, 42 L.Ed. 1188; Greenstein v. Christopher & Simpson (Mo. App.), 178 S.W. 1179; Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206, 232, 80 P. 571; McCallion v. Mo. P. Ry. Co., 74 Kan. 785, 88 P. 50, Subd. 6. 5. Analogous cases--landlord and tenant type and cases holding no liability after contractor completes work. Bates v. Stearns, 141 Kan. 814, 817, 44 P.2d 278; Bailey v. Kelly, 93 Kan. 723, 145 P. 556; C. & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Booten (C. C. A. 8), 57 F.2d 786, 797; Fraser v. Kruger (C. C. A. 8), 298 F. 696; Turner v. Kent, 134 Kan. 574, 576, 7 P.2d 513; Davis v. Cities Service Oil Co. (Mo. App.), 131 S.W.2d 865; Clark v. Chase Hotel Co. (Mo. App.), 74 S.W.2d 498; DeTarr v. Ferd. Heim Brewing Co., 62 Kan. 188, 61 P. 689; Murrell v. Crawford, 102 Kan. 118, 169 P. 561; Lahtinen v. Continental Bldg. Co., 339 Mo. 438, 97 S.W.2d 102, 107, 8 A. L. R. 775. 6. Analogous cases--miscellaneous types. M., K. & T. Railway Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 70 P. 358, 93 A. S. R. 287, 59 L.R.A. 711; Engler v. Aldrich, 147 Kan. 43, 47, 75 P.2d 290; Casey v. Hoover, 114 Mo.App. 47, 89 S.W. 330, 334; Cummings v. Halpin (Mo. App.), 27 S.W.2d 718, 721; White v. Springfield, 189 Mo.App. 228, 173 S.W. 1090; 43 C. J. 1102; Williams v. Edward Gillen Dock, Dredge & Const. Co. (C. C. A. 6), 258 F. 591, 594 to 597; Erie & Western Transp. Co. v. City of Chicago, 178 F. 42, 52, 53, 54 L.Ed. 641; Memphis Asphalt & Paving Co. v. Fleming, 96 Ark. 442, 132 S.W. 222; Canal Const. Co. v. Clem, 163 Ark. 416, 260 S.W. 442; Armstrong v. Tulsa, 102 Okla. 49, 226 P. 560; Jones v. Beck (Tex.), 109 S.W.2d 787, 788; Nedler v. Neece Lumber Co. (Tex.), 63 S.W.2d 403, 404; Walker v. McNichal P. & C. Co. (Pa.), 189 A. 673, 675; Donaldson v. Jones, 61 P. 24, 1007, 1009; Bogoratt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co. (Conn.), 157 A. 850, 867; Heizer v. Kingsland & Douglass Mfg. Co., 110 Mo. 605, 19 S.W. 630, 633; Wharton on Negligence; A., T. & S. F. v. Penfold, 57 Kan. 148, 153, 45 P. 574; McCallion v. Mo. P. R. Co., 74 Kan. 785, 88 P. 50, 9 L.R.A. (N. S.) 866. 7. Under Kansas law surrender by defendant; acceptance by the general contractor; clean-up work by the general contractor; delivery of possession to plaintiff's employer; adoption of the board by plaintiff's employer and the direct order to use the board by plaintiff's own foreman at whose instance plaintiff was on it, was a break in the chain of causal connection between alleged negligence of defendant and plaintiff's injury. Allison v. Stivers, 81 Kan. 713, 106 P. 996; St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Justice, 80 Kan. 10, 101 P. 469; Colwell v. Parker, 81 Kan. 295, 105 P. 524; Campbell v. Weathers, 153 Kan. 316, 328; Smith v. Mead Const. Co., 129 Kan. 229, 233, 282 P. 708; Woodard v. Bush, 282 Mo. 163, 220 S.W. 839, 841, 842; M., K. & T. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 70 P. 358, 93 A. S. R. 287, 59 L.R.A. 711; 36 Harv. L. R. 761, 762; 22 Columbia L. R. 764; Bailey v. Kelly, 93 Kan. 723, 145 P. 556, Subds. 5 and 6; Union Stockyards Co. v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 196 U.S. 217, 49 L.Ed. 453, 455; Glynn v. Central R. Co., 175 Mass. 510, 56 N.E. 698; West Jersey & S. R. Co. v. Cochran (C. C. A. 3), 266 F. 609, 611; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Chatters, 279 U.S. 320, 73 L.Ed. 711, 719; Kiser v. Suppe, 133 Mo.App. 19, 112 S.W. 1005, 1009; Kiehling v. Humes-Deal Co. (Mo. App.), 16 S.W.2d 637, l. c. 641; State ex rel. v. Cox, 310 Mo. 367, 276 S.W. 869, 871; Cochran v. Wilson, 287 Mo. 210, 229 S.W. 1050, 1057; Turner v. Ragan (Mo.), 229 S.W. 809, 811, 812, Subds. 4 and 5. 8. Plaintiff was not an invitee of defendant under Kansas law. Toomey v. Wichison Industrial Gas Co., 44 Kan. 534, 61 P.2d 891. 9. Refusal of defendant's instructions "P," "L," "Q," "U," "V" and "W" and giving plaintiff's Instruction One was error. Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206, 232, 80 P. 571; Panjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co., 98 S.W.2d 978, 339 Mo. 726; St. Louis & H. R. Co. v. Walsh Fire Clay Products Co. (Mo. App.), 16 S.W.2d 616, 618; Jordan v. Daniels, 224 Mo.App. 749, 27 S.W.2d 1052, 1057; State ex rel. v. McKay, 325 Mo. 1075, 30 S.W.2d 83; Woods v. Moore (Mo. App.), 48 S.W.2d 202; State ex rel. v. Shain (Mo.), 108 S.W.2d 351; Gary v. Averill, 321 Mo. 840, 12 S.W.2d 747. (2) Plaintiff's cases distinguished. Loehring v. Westlake Const. Co., 118 Mo.App. 163, 94 S.W. 747; Kiehling v. Humes-Deal Co. (Mo. App.), 16 S.W.2d 637; Degitz & Hauserman v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 97 Kan. 654, 156 P. 743; Osby et al. v. Tarlton, 336 Mo. 1240, 85 S.W.2d 27; Cull v. McMillan Contracting Co. (Mo. App.), 178 S.W. 868; Losey v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 84 Kan. 224, 114 P. 198; Greenstein v. Christopher & Simpson (Mo. App.), 178 S.W. 1179; Allison v. Stivers, 81 Kan. 713, 106 P. 996; Howard v. Sacks (Mo. App.), 76 S.W.2d 460. New York cases supporting defendant. Cullings v. Goetz et al., 256 N.Y. 287, 176 N.E. 397; Potter v. N. Y., O. & W. Ry. Co., 261 N.Y. 489, 185 N.E. 708; Lafredo v. Bush Terminal Co., 261 N.Y. 323, 185 N.E. 398; Berkowitz v. Winston, 128 Ohio St. 611, 183 N.E. 343; Clark v. Chase Hotel Co., 230 Mo.App. 739, 74 S.W.2d 498; Metzroth v. City of N. Y., 288 N.Y.S. 744, 241 N.Y. 470, 150 N.E. 519; Zolezzi v. Bruce-Brown, 243 N.Y. 409, 154 N.E. 535; Coleman v. A. L. Guidone & Son, 192 A.D. 120, 182 N.Y.S. 625. (3) Plaintiff's Instruction No. 3 was error: (1) It misdirects the jury on the burden of proof; (2) It conflicts with Instruction "J," and confused the jury; (3) It authorizes recovery for negligence which contributed without requiring a finding the negligence caused the injury; and (4) it does not hypothesize the facts constituting contributory negligence or define it. Barrett v. Town of Canton, 338 Mo. 1082, 93 S.W.2d 927, 931; Dougherty v. Mo. R. R. Co., 97 Mo. 647, 11 S.W. 251; Mott v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 79 S.W.2d 1057, 1062; Smith v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 328 Mo. 979, 43 S.W.2d 548; State ex rel. v. Shain (Mo.), 108 S.W.2d 351, 353; Chapman v. Mo. P. R. R. Co., 217 Mo.App. 312, 269 S.W. 688, 690; Campbell v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n (Mo. App.), 126 S.W.2d 915, 920; State ex rel. v. Blobeck Inv. Co. (Mo. App.), 63 S.W.2d 448, 449; Sloan v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 323 Mo. 363, 19 S.W.2d 476, 480; Hof v. St. Louis Transit Co., 213 Mo. 445, 111 S.W. 1166, 1171; Moon v. St. Louis Transit Co., 247 Mo. 227, 152 S.W. 303, 305; Inland Valley Coal Co. v. Wells (Mo. App.), 24 S.W.2d 208, 210; Anderson v. Northrop, 230 Mo.App. 1225, 96 S.W.2d 521, 526; Reiling v. Russell (Mo.), 153 S.W.2d 6, 9, Subd. 4; Stanich v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.), 153 S.W.2d 54, 56 to 59, Subds. 1-5; Ingram v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co. (Mo. App.), 153 S.W.2d 547, 555.

Trusty, Pugh, Green & Trusty, N. R. Fischer and Guy Green for respondent.

(1) The demurrer was properly overruled because: (a) Plaintiff's evidence showed that defendant put in and arranged the walkway and continued to use it after the Gunite Company started work in the adjoining hopper and that before the Gunite employees used the walkway so placed and used by defendant, defendant expressly invited them to use it and thus assured them of its safety and they had a right to presume that it was safe for the use for which it had been intended. Evans v. Hilliard, 112 S.W.2d 886; 4 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 779, p. 1789; Simmons v. Wells (Mo.), 20 S.W.2d 659; Tillery v. Harvey (Mo. App.), 214 S.W. 246; Cooley v Dunham, 196 Mo.App. 339, 195 S.W. 1058; Lynch v. Mo. P., 92 Kan. 735; 3 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 459, p. 1108; Scaggs v. Canal Co., 145...