Schlavick v. Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William B. Homer, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. When the allegations of the petition concerning failure to box, or otherwise guard, the shaft are eliminated, there is nothing, in substance, left but the charge that the defendant was negligent in ordering the plaintiff to work at cleaning: the shaft while it was moving, without warning plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William B. Homer, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. When the allegations of the petition concerning failure to box, or otherwise guard, the shaft are eliminated, there is nothing, in substance, left but the charge that the defendant was negligent in ordering the plaintiff to work at cleaning: the shaft while it was moving, without warning plaintiff. It appears from the evidence that the risk of doing this work was one that was perfectly apparent and which the plaintiff was capable of appreciating, and one that…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
— This is a suit for damages accrued to plaintiff on account of personal injuries received through defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
At the time of his injury, plaintiff, a youth seventeen years and four months of age, was in defendant’s employ in its shoe factory in the city of St. Louis. Uis occupation pertained to that of heeling shoes, but he received his injury from performing a task under the order of his foreman wholly aside and extra of the occupation mentioned. Together with others in charge of defendant’s foreman, plaintiff was engaged…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Huhn v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Railroad Company v. FortSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Settle v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Dowling v. Gerard B. Allen & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Mahoney v. DoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Batesell v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Schantz v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1920