Holman v. E. E. Souther Iron Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. — Eon. G. A. Wur deman, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained because the evidence showed that the presence of the brick making machine was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Recovery can be had only where the negligence complained of is the proximate cause of the injury. Labatt on Master and Servant, sec. 810; Trigg v. Lumber Co., 86 S. W. 222; Goransson v. Mfg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. — Eon. G. A. Wur deman, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained because the evidence showed that the presence of the brick making machine was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Recovery can be had only where the negligence complained of is the proximate cause of the injury. Labatt on Master and Servant, sec. 810; Trigg v. Lumber Co., 86 S. W. 222; Goransson v. Mfg. Co., 186 Mo. 307; Railroad v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469; Henry v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 288; Doolittle v. Pfaff, 92 111. 301; Dolan v. Iron Co., 66 Mo. App. 545;…
1Opinion of the CourtNixon, P. J.
I. The appellant’s principal contention in its assignment of errors is that its demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained because the evidence showed that the presence of the brick making machine was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury and that recovery could only be had where the negligence complained of was the proximate cause of the injury.
It is the duty of the master to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place and reasonably safe appliances *681in which and with which to do the master’s work. [Doyle v. Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co., 140 Mo. 1, 41 S. W. 255; Minnier v.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Curtis v. McNairSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Blundell v. Wm. A. Miller Elevator Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Tinkle v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Erwin v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Bible v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Mattingly v. BroderickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
- Sartain v. Jefferson City Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914