Dean v. St. Louis Woodenware Works
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Ho#. E. M. Hughes, Judge. Where a person having a choice of two ways, one of which is perfectly safe and the other of which is subject to risks and dangers, voluntarily chooses the latter and is injured, he is guilty of contributory negligence and can not recover. Moore v. Eailway, 146 Mo. 572; Hurst v. Eailway, 163 Mo. 310; Palmer v. Kinloch Co., 91 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Ho#. E. M. Hughes, Judge. Where a person having a choice of two ways, one of which is perfectly safe and the other of which is subject to risks and dangers, voluntarily chooses the latter and is injured, he is guilty of contributory negligence and can not recover. Moore v. Eailway, 146 Mo. 572; Hurst v. Eailway, 163 Mo. 310; Palmer v. Kinloch Co., 91 Mo. App. 106. (1) It is the duty of employers to furnish their servants with reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to do their work, and their failure to do so constitutes actionable negligence.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — As is usual in negligence cases, no matter how contradictory the evidence, an appeal is made to us to summarily end this litigation on the ground that no cause of action was proven prima facie. In this connection it is insisted by the defendant that these facts were established beyond controversy : First; the saw was reasonably safe; second, it .was of a kind in general use — another form of stating the first proposition, the defendant says; third, plaintiff, in undertaking and continuing to operate it, assumed the -risk of the injury he received, as the danger…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Sullivan v. India Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Gibson v. . Erie Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Curtis v. McNairSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Blanton v. DolbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lee v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Zeigenmeyer v. Goetz Lime & Cement Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Phillips v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Mueller v. LaPrelle Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Browning v. KastenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.