Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Baldwin v. Hanley & Kinsella Coffee Co.

Baldwin v. Hanley & Kinsella Coffee Co.

216 S.W. 998, 202 Mo. App. 650, 1919 Mo. App. LEXIS 153
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 2, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 216 S.W. 998 (Baldwin v. Hanley & Kinsella Coffee Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baldwin v. Hanley & Kinsella Coffee Co., 216 S.W. 998, 202 Mo. App. 650, 1919 Mo. App. LEXIS 153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant corporation as its servant. The trial below resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $5000, and the defendant prosecutes the appeal.

*654 At the time of plaintiff’s injury defendant conducted its business in a building situated on the north side of Spruce street in the City of St. Louis, facing to the south. The ground floor of this building contained a “general office,” to which-the main entrance to the building led. In the rear was an “L” shaped “elevator room,” separated from the "general office by partitions and by an enclosed elevator shaft. This elevator shaft faced west and opened into that part of the elevator room which extended farthest south; the rear end of that room extending entirely across the building. Immediately north of this building was another building containing, on the ground floor, defendant’s warehouse which was separated from the elevator room by a brick wall common to the two buildings. Near the northeast corner of the elevator room a door led from that room into the storeroom. The arrangement of these rooms, and the location of the elevator shaft, etc., will more fully appear from the drawing appearing herewith. It seems that this drawing, prepared by appellant, was not the one introduced in evidence below, the latter having-been lost, but it is conceded that it is substantially correct, and it suffices for our purposes.

*See drawing on opposite page

The main building was at least four stories in height and the elevator was a freight elevator, operated by tlie various employees of defendant in the course of its business; no special operator being at any time In charge thereof. When an employee on any one of the floors desired to use the elevator, and did not find it at that floor, the custom was to reach into the shaft and' shake or “jangle” one of the cables, which made a noise that could be heard by one at or near the elevator. There is some controversy in the testimony as to how loud this noise was, but the evidence for plaintiff is to the effect that it could be heard only fifteen or .twenty feet away. It is said that it could not be heard in the wareroom mentioned. An employee, upon any floor, desiring to use the elevator when it was" at another floor, after shaking the cable and hearing no call or *657 warning from anyone, would pull the operating rope thus bringing the elevator to the floor upon which he stood. It is said that when the rope was pulled downward the elevator was caused to ascend and vice versa. It appears that defendant had previously installed a system by means of which a bell would be rung when the elevator was to be used, but that this device was out of order at the time of plaintiff’s injury and had been so for a long time prior thereto.

*655

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Senseney v. Landay Real Estate Co.
131 S.W.2d 595 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Cox v. Trimble
279 S.W. 60 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1926)
Cox v. Bondurant
7 S.W.2d 403 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1925)
Katz v. North Kansas City Development Co.
258 S.W. 752 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1924)
Chambers v. Hines
233 S.W. 949 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1921)
McIntyre v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.
227 S.W. 1047 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1921)
Grote v. Hussmann
223 S.W. 129 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
Haggard v. Southwest Missouri Railroad
220 S.W. 22 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 S.W. 998, 202 Mo. App. 650, 1919 Mo. App. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-hanley-kinsella-coffee-co-moctapp-1919.