Legal Opinion

Stoddard v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1877PublishedCited by 36 opinions

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.—Hon. Samuel L. Sawyer, Judge. It is true that it is the duty of the master to be careful in the selection of his servants, and to provide safe and suitable machinery; but the proposition is undeniable that the master will be exempt from responsibility in all cases where the risks were apparent, and were voluntarily assumed by a person capable of understanding and appreciating them.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.—Hon. Samuel L. Sawyer, Judge. It is true that it is the duty of the master to be careful in the selection of his servants, and to provide safe and suitable machinery; but the proposition is undeniable that the master will be exempt from responsibility in all cases where the risks were apparent, and were voluntarily assumed by a person capable of understanding and appreciating them. Smith v. Union JR. R. Co. 61 Mo. 588; Keegan v. Kavanaugh, 62 Mo. 230; Hayden v. Smithville Manufacturing Co. 29 Conn. 548-558; Wonder v. B. $ 0. JR. JR. Co. 32 Md. 411; Williams…

1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.

This suit was instituted in the circuit court of Jackson county by plaintiff, who was an employee of defendant, and whose business as such was to assist in making up trains at the yard of defendant, in Kansas City, for the recovery of damages sustained by him while in defendant’s service. It is substantially alleged in the petition, that plaintiff was employed by defendant to assist in making up its trains, and that while so engaged in uncoupling a car from the tender and locomotive of defendant, the right foot of plaintiff was caught and fastened in what is known as a spring frog, so that he…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Keegan v. KavanaughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. Conroy v. Vulcan Iron WorksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  3. Harper v. Indianapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
  4. Brothers v. CartterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
  5. Smith v. Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Hamman v. Central Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  2. Hamilton v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  3. Devlin v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
  4. Fugler v. BotheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  5. Flynn v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API