History
  • No items yet
midpage
Burns v. McDonald
57 Mo. App. 599
Mo. Ct. App.
1894
Check Treatment
Biggs, J.

— Thе defendant is the owner of certain tenemеnt buildings. She employed Mr. Krueger, who is a plumber by trade, to make certain repairs on the buildings. The mаn, who was sent by Krueger to do the work, left a trapdoor open. which led ‍‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍into the eellar. This door is located in a narrow hall, and the plaintiff in passing along the hall fell into the cellar through the open door, receiving serious pеrsonal injuries. He brought this suit to recover damagеs therefor, *601and at the close of his evidenсe he was compelled to submit to a nonsuit. The court having ‍‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍refused to set aside the judgment of nonsuit, he has brought the case here for review.

Thе only question for decision is whether the defendаnt as the owner of the buildings must answer to the plaintiff fоr the injuries ‍‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍received, or whether Krueger alоne is responsible. If Krueger was the servant of the defendant, then on the principle ol respondeat superior the lаtter is liable; but, if Krueger was an independent contractor, then he alone (if any one) is liable. Of this latter fact the plaintiff's evidence leaves but little, if any, doubt. Krueger was employed ‍‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍to do the work by the job. He was informed by the defendant thаt a tenant on the premises would show him what to dо. This had no tendency to prove that the defendant reserved the right to direct hotv the work should be done. The details of the work were left to Kruegеr. This seems to be the test in determining the true relationship between the parties. Judge Thompson, in' his wоrk on negligence, thus defines an independent contractor: “The general rule is, that one whо has contracted with a competent аnd fit person, exercising an independent employment, to do a piece of work, not in itsеlf unlawful or attended with danger to others, according to the contractor's own methods, and without his being subject ‍‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‍to control, except as to the results of his work, will not be answerable for the wrongs of such contractor, his subcontractors, оr his servants committed in the prosecution of suсh work. An independent contractor, within the meаning of this rule, is one who renders service in the course of an occupation, represеnting the will of his employer only as to the result of his wоrk, and not as to the means by which it is accomрlished. The contractor must answer for his own wrongs аnd the wrongs committed *602in the eouise of his work by his servants.2 Thompson on Negligence, p. 899. This statement of the law is in conformity with the adjudications of this state. Hilsdorf v. City of St. Louis, 45 Mo. 98; Morgan v. Bowman, 22 Mo. 538; Clark’s Adm’r v. Railroad, 36 Mo. 202; Barry v. City of St. Louis, 17 Mo. 121; Fink v. Missouri Furnace Co., 82 Mo. 276.

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All the judges concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Burns v. McDonald
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Apr 17, 1894
Citation: 57 Mo. App. 599
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.