Corby v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. Francis II. Trimble, Judge. (1) Plaintiff was engaged in' tearing down old work for the reason that it was worn out and had to be replaced. Conditions with regard to safety changed continually as the work progressed. The unsafe condition, if there was an unsafe condition, arose on aocount of work done by plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. Francis II. Trimble, Judge. (1) Plaintiff was engaged in' tearing down old work for the reason that it was worn out and had to be replaced. Conditions with regard to safety changed continually as the work progressed. The unsafe condition, if there was an unsafe condition, arose on aocount of work done by plaintiff. F'or these reasons the rule that the master must furnish a safe place to work does not apply, and the risk was one which was assumed by plaintiff. Tweed v. Telephone Co., 114 N. Y. Supp. 607; Thompson on Negligence, sec. 3876; Montgomery v.…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
This suit was begun by the plaintiff against the defendant in the circuit court of Jackson county, to recover $36,000 as damages for personal injuries sustained by him through the alleged negligence of the company, while he was assisting in tearing down an old and rebuilding a new telephone plant in the city of Fort Scott, Kansas, on the 5th day of December, 1905.
It is necessary, in order to understand some of the legal questions presented by this record, to set out the petition upon which the cause was tried. It reads as follows (formal parts omitted) :
‘ ‘ Plaintiff says that the defendant…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- McGuire v. . Bell Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Williams v. Garbutt Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Clairain v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1888
- Southwestern Telephone Co. v. WoughterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Bradley v. James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Fishleigh v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Oglesby v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1927
- Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. HowellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1948
- Hightower v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
- Adair v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.