Kautz v. St. Louis Refrigerator Car Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. —Hon. Daniel D. FisherJudge. (1) The dual capacity doctrine is the settled law of this State. English v. Rand Shoe Company, 145 Mo. App. 450. The claims of the defendant rest either upon the theory of distinct departments or upon the theory that the act complained of was the act of a vice-principal. The men were consociated in a common task. Card v. Eddy, 129 Mo. 518. The demurrer should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. —Hon. Daniel D. FisherJudge. (1) The dual capacity doctrine is the settled law of this State. English v. Rand Shoe Company, 145 Mo. App. 450. The claims of the defendant rest either upon the theory of distinct departments or upon the theory that the act complained of was the act of a vice-principal. The men were consociated in a common task. Card v. Eddy, 129 Mo. 518. The demurrer should have been sustained. The negligent act complained of was an act of manual labor of the same species and to the same efid as that being performed by the…
1Opinion of the Court
REYNOLDS, P.’ J.
Plaintiff, while in the employ of. defendant and engaged in unloading car wheels from a car and placing them in one of the departments of-defendant’s plant, rolling a wheel, came in contact with another wheel, which was standing in the passageway, leaning against a lathe, and the two wheels fell on his right leg, crushing it and necessitating its amputation above the knee. Placing his damages at $20,000, plaintiff recovered a verdict for $7500. Judgment following, defendant has duly appealed.
The charge of negligence in the petition upon which the case was tried is. that…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Moore v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Hall v. Manufacturers Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Koerner v. St. Louis Car Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Burkard v. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Sams v. St. Louis & Meramec River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Craven v. Midland Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1922
- Porter v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1925
- Danny Brock v. Peter Dunne, in his Capacity as Ad Litem for Mark EdwardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 2021
- Porter v. Missouri Pacific RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925