Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Reckert v. Roco Petroleum Corporation

Reckert v. Roco Petroleum Corporation

411 S.W.2d 199, 1966 Mo. LEXIS 587
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedDecember 30, 1966
Docket51720
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 411 S.W.2d 199 (Reckert v. Roco Petroleum Corporation) 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
Reckert v. Roco Petroleum Corporation, 411 S.W.2d 199, 1966 Mo. LEXIS 587 (Mo. 1966).

Opinion

HOUSER, Commissioner.

Death action by Helen Reckert, widow of William, an employee at a gasoline filling station burned to death when gasoline escaping from the tank of a station wagon on a hydraulic grease rack caught fire and exploded.

Standard Oil Company, allegedly the owner of the filling station, Roco Petroleum Corporation, lessee, and Otto Evans, sublessee, were originally named as defendants. Standard was dismissed. The jury exonerated Evans and returned a verdict for $25,000 against Roco. A new trial was granted Roco on the ground that the court erred in giving Instruction No. 2, and plaintiff appealed.

The first question is whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff made a submissible case of negligence against Roco.

The written lease between Roco as lessor and Evans as lessee covered fixtures, equipment and appliances. The rental was not only for the use and enjoyment of the real estate and buildings but also was specified to be for the use of the equipment. Under the lease Evans was to handle Roco’s products exclusively. Lessee Evans was bound to keep the equipment in repair and lessor had a right to inspect the premises to insure lessee’s performance of this obligation. In the writing lessee acknowledged that he had examined and knew the condition of the equipment and appliances and that they were received in good order and repair. The lease provided that lessor was to be exonerated and indemnified against liability arising out of the condition, use and operation of the property and premises. No provision of the lease was to be construed as reserving to lessor any right to exercise any control over the business or operation or to direct how it should be conducted, “it being understood and agreed that the entire control and direction of such activities shall be and remain with the Lessee.” Lessee was to have no authority to employ any persons or agents for lessor and lessee was not to be deemed to be the employee of lessor. A separate loaned equipment agreement executed between the same parties at the same time contained an acknowledgment by Evans that he had in his possession the hydraulic grease rack and granted him the right to use it. This agreement also contained an indemnification clause holding Roco harmless as against any liability arising out of injury to persons caused by or resulting from the condition or use of the equipment, whether caused by improper construction or negligence.

The grease rack consisted of two parallel I-beams joined at the middle, attached to a hydraulic piston capable of raising an automobile. When the rack was in a “down” *202 position the beams rested on the floor. An automobile would be “run on” with its wheels on each side of the I-beams. By turning a valve compressed air would raise the rack until it came in contact with the front axle and rear axle housing. The front axle would rest on stationary pieces of metal attached to the I-beams. The rear axle housing would rest on flanges or dogs.” These dogs were moveable and could be adjusted to accommodate automobiles of differing lengths by sliding them along the I-beams. When properly positioned the automobile would be lifted to the desired height for servicing.

Here is a picture of one of the I-beams, showing a flange or “dog” in upright or vertical position:

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

Related

DONNA COWGUR v. JOEL MURPHY, JESSICA MURPHY, Defendants-Respondents JEFFERY SPROUS, LISA SPROUS and JOHN DOE REALTY
Missouri Court of Appeals, 2019
Capsco Products, Inc. v. Savageau
493 N.W.2d 650 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1992)
Chandler v. Furrer
823 S.W.2d 27 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
Uelk v. Directory Distributing Associates, Inc.
803 S.W.2d 632 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
Nenninger v. Trustees of the Oran Life Tabernacle Church
789 S.W.2d 530 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Sirna v. APC Building Corp.
730 S.W.2d 561 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
Wingo v. Eagle Realty Co.
726 S.W.2d 805 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
Milne v. Pevely Dairy Co.
641 S.W.2d 158 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Spencer v. Crow Enterprises, Inc.
636 S.W.2d 369 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Smith v. Sayles
637 S.W.2d 714 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Swindell v. J. A. Tobin Construction Co.
629 S.W.2d 536 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1981)
Rinker v. Ford Motor Co.
567 S.W.2d 655 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Thomas v. Missouri Power & Light Co.
562 S.W.2d 412 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Shane v. Hoffmann
324 A.2d 532 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Friend v. Gem International, Inc.
476 S.W.2d 134 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
Pagano v. Kolbrener, Inc.
469 S.W.2d 745 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
Standard Oil Company v. Harris
172 S.E.2d 344 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Horstman v. Glatt
436 S.W.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1969)
Skain v. Weldon
422 S.W.2d 271 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1967)
Knox v. Sands
421 S.W.2d 497 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
411 S.W.2d 199, 1966 Mo. LEXIS 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reckert-v-roco-petroleum-corporation-mo-1966.