Plefka v. Knapp-Stout Lumber Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Selden P. Spencer, Judge. Certified to Supreme Court. Where the defects of appliances are obvious to the sense of any man, whether master or servant, the servant assumes the risk. Wray v. E. L. £ W. P. Co., 68 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Selden P. Spencer, Judge. Certified to Supreme Court. Where the defects of appliances are obvious to the sense of any man, whether master or servant, the servant assumes the risk. Wray v. E. L. £ W. P. Co., 68 Mo. App. 380; Marshall v. Hay Press Co., 69 Id. 256-261; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 473; Steinhauser v. Sprawl, 127 Id. 541. Where the testimony of witnesses is confronted by admitted facts and circumstances, which are totally repugnant to and entirely inconsistent with it, then such testimony must give way and be counted for naught.…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $2,500 for personal injuries, resulting in the amputation of his foot and ankle, which he alleges were caused by the defendant’s negligent direction given him as servant, to operate an unsafe lumber hoister. Defendant appealed to this court and assigns for error the refusal of the trial court to direct a judgment in its favor. It follows that if any view of the entire evidence affords a legitimate inference of negligence on the part of defendant, such assignment can not be sustained. Lee v. Knapp, 137 Mo. 385. Or, as this rule has been well expressed in a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- O'Mellia v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Settle v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Hamilton v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Devitt v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Lee v. Publishers George Knapp & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.