Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Connolly v. St. Joseph Press Printing Co.

Connolly v. St. Joseph Press Printing Co.

66 S.W. 268, 166 Mo. 447, 1902 Mo. LEXIS 10
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 13, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 66 S.W. 268 (Connolly v. St. Joseph Press Printing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Connolly v. St. Joseph Press Printing Co., 66 S.W. 268, 166 Mo. 447, 1902 Mo. LEXIS 10 (Mo. 1902).

Opinion

BRACE, 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 instructions given. The only real question in the case is whether the court erred in submitting the case to the jury.

The cause of action stated in the petition is, in substance: That the defendant owned and operated a printing plant, in which the plaintiff was one of its employees. That among other instruments and machinery used and operated in its business was a machine known as a “shaver” with a knife attached to a spindle for trimming and shaving stereotype plates, which had a certain lever and spring, and brake or shoe and grooves and fasteners or clutches that acted upon a belt and pulley and other appliances of said machine which, when_in proper repair and condition, would stop and hold said spindle to which said knife was attached, so that the stereotype plates could be safely removed by the employee in charge. That on and for a long time prior to October 29, 1898, the defendant had negligently permitted this lever spring, and brake or shoe and the grooves, fasteners and other appliances to become and remain worn and defective so that they would not hold the spindle, which would revolve when it ought to remain stationary, which condition had been known to the defendant for months, and was not known to plaintiff. That at said date and while said machine was in this condition, the plaintiff in the discharge of his duty as such employee attempted to take out a plate, which had been shaved, when the knife suddenly re[453]*453volved, on account of said defects, cutting off his right hand and two fingers of his left hand.

[0]*0

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

Related

United Coal Mining Co. v. Daugherty
96 N.E. 477 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1911)
Butz v. Murch Bros. Construction Co.
97 S.W. 895 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Stafford v. Adams
88 S.W. 1130 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Lee v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railroad
87 S.W. 12 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Mathis v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.
84 S.W. 66 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 S.W. 268, 166 Mo. 447, 1902 Mo. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-st-joseph-press-printing-co-mo-1902.