Connolly v. St. Joseph Press Printing Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. A. M. Woodson, Judge. (1) While the rule is that it is the duty of the master to use ordinary care to furnish a reasonably safe place to work, and reasonably safe appliances with which to work, and that the servant may assume that this duty on the part of the master has been performed, it is qualified by the equally well-settled rule that the servant may not, as against his master, assume as true what he knows to be untrue, or what…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. A. M. Woodson, Judge. (1) While the rule is that it is the duty of the master to use ordinary care to furnish a reasonably safe place to work, and reasonably safe appliances with which to work, and that the servant may assume that this duty on the part of the master has been performed, it is qualified by the equally well-settled rule that the servant may not, as against his master, assume as true what he knows to be untrue, or what the ordinary care which he has contracted to exercise would demonstrate to be untrue. Bailey’s Master’s Liability, pp.…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, P. J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Buchanan Circuit Court in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $5,000, in an action for personal injuries.
The only errors assigned for reversal are the refusal of the court to sustain a demurrer to the evidence, and to give two instructions ashed for by the defendant. The court gave seven instructions for the defendant, presenting its side of the case very favorably, and it is only necessary to say in regard to these refused instructions that they contained nothing to which the defendant was entitled that was not included in the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Huhn v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Stephens v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Bradley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Keegan v. KavanaughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mathis v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Stafford v. AdamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Lee v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Butz v. Murch Bros. Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- United Coal Mining Co. v. DaughertyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911