105 Mo. App. 161 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1904
Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant telephone company. He was injured while engaged in assisting in stringing some additional wires on the poles of the company. He brought this action for damages and obtained judgment in the trial court.
The objection to the judgment refers principally to the right of plaintiff to recover under the evidence. Since the verdict was for the plaintiff we will state in substance what the evidence in his behalf tended to
It is quite certain that if the story leading up to the injury and the manner it was brought about, as told by plaintiff and his witnesses, is to he believed, but one re-
We do not object to the general statements of the law of what knowledge and acts of plaintiff ‘ would throw upon himself the consequences of his conduct in defendant’s service; but they are not opposed to the view that the facts as shown in his behalf made a case against defendant. Though plaintiff knew that there were live or charged wires on the pole, he did not know that they had been left stripped of insulation. And the statement of his foreman that everything was safe and the order to him to go up the pole was an assurance that the wires were in proper condition. The law is so laid down in Bane v. Irwin, 172 Mo. 306-316.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed.