Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Hammontree v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.

Hammontree v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.

270 S.W.2d 117
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 14, 1954
Docket21952
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 270 S.W.2d 117 (Hammontree v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.) 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
Hammontree v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 270 S.W.2d 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

BOUR, Commissioner.

Chet Leon Hammontree, a minor, by Mrs. Patricia Mae Hammontree, his mother and next friend, brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in a store operated by the defendant corporation. A trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,000 and judgment was rendered accordingly. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment and to have judgment entered in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict filed at the close of all the evidence, and in the alternative a motion for a new trial, as provided by Section 510.290 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The court sustained the first-mentioned motion, overruled the motion for a new trial, set aside the verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff was one and one-half years of age at the time of the accident and about four at the time of the trial. Three witnesses testified for plaintiff; namely, Mrs. Hammontree, plaintiff’s mother, Mrs. Lillian Roles, plaintiff’s maternal grandmother, and Dr. Edward P. Altomare. By agreement of the parties, Dr. Altomare’s testimony was omitted from the transcript. Defendant called no witnesses.

The record shows that at all times here material, the defendant, Edison Brothers Stores, Inc., operated a retail store known as the Baker Shoe Store and located on the west side of Main Street, between Tenth Street and Eleventh Street, in Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 and defendant’s Exhibits 4 and 5 are photographs of the front entrance to defendant’s store which were taken after the accident occurred. These photographs were taken from the interior of the store with the camera pointing towards Main Street. They were admitted in evidence without objection, after plaintiff’s mother testified that they correctly represented the conditions existing at the time of the accident.

The evidence showed that the front entrance to the store consisted of two swinging doors set back about twenty feet from the sidewalk on Main Street. The sidewalk runs north and south. There was a display window on each side of a passage which led from the sidewalk to the double doors. The doors turned on pivots which fitted into sockets in the sill and head. They were pivoted on opposite sides and between what might be called the pivot side of each door and the nearest display window was a stationary, perpendicular panel or door jamb. Mrs. Hammontree testified that these panels were “more than a foot” in width. Each door and each panel consisted of a single piece of thick, transparent glass, with metal strips or framework extending along the upper and lower *120 edges. Each door was equipped on the Wlth S metaI bar or handle marked Full . In order to clarify the facts in this case, we set forth below a copy of plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 and a copy of defendant’s Exhibit 4.

*121

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

Related

Kuehle v. Patrick
646 S.W.2d 845 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Orr v. First National Stores, Inc.
280 A.2d 785 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1971)
McIntyre v. M. & K. Department Store, Inc.
435 S.W.2d 737 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1968)
Terry Ex Rel. Terry v. Sweeney
420 S.W.2d 368 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1967)
Thomas v. HOUSING AUTH. OF CITY OF BREMERTON
426 P.2d 836 (Washington Supreme Court, 1967)
Rupert v. Huffman
413 S.W.2d 222 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1967)
Anderson v. Maneval
410 S.W.2d 578 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1966)
Bridges Ex Rel. Bridges v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co.
410 S.W.2d 106 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1966)
Heckendorf v. J. C. Penney Co.
142 N.W.2d 801 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)
Hosford ex rel. Hosford v. Clark ex rel. Jones
359 S.W.2d 424 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
Haire v. Stagner
356 S.W.2d 305 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
Gregory v. Robinson
338 S.W.2d 88 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1960)
Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Paseo Manor South, Inc.
331 S.W.2d 1 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1959)
Bronson v. Kansas City
323 S.W.2d 526 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1959)
Caffey v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
292 S.W.2d 611 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1956)
Fowler v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad
286 S.W.2d 404 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 S.W.2d 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammontree-v-edison-bros-stores-inc-moctapp-1954.