Buckner v. Stock Yards Horse & Mule Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Eon. W. B. Teasdale, Judge. (1) Under the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The gate and floor was a simple, ordinary appliance, without any complication, plain to he seen and observed by any man. It was being used constantly and might be out of line at any time. Plaintiff knew its condition and was the man to know it. He had control of it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Eon. W. B. Teasdale, Judge. (1) Under the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The gate and floor was a simple, ordinary appliance, without any complication, plain to he seen and observed by any man. It was being used constantly and might be out of line at any time. Plaintiff knew its condition and was the man to know it. He had control of it. It was his duty to report it if it needed repairing and he was the man to know when it needed repairing. He knew precisely what he was doing and left the gate in the condition in which it was. There could…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
This is an action for personal injuries. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant, which is a Missouri corporation engaged in the business of a commission merchant, buying and selling horses and mules. In its said business the defendant was using a certain barn in Kansas City, Missouri, known by it as barn “C,” which barn extended from Cenessee street on the east to Bell street on the west. Through said barn from east to west was an alley twelve feet wide and upon either side thereof were pens in which horses and mules were kept, fed and watered. This alley way had a board floor, and these pens…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
- Stephens v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Keegan v. KavanaughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Conroy v. Vulcan Iron WorksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Flynn v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Jewell v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Gladden v. Missouri Public Service CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Tayer v. York Ice MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Kidd v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Daneschocky v. SiebleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.