*1 threat, fears, promise some practicing by or or his many Indeed eases subsequently confession made inadmissible.”' obtaining a con artifice, hold that the or use deceit falsehood by phys fession if will not render it inadmissible induced violence, advantage. promises ical harm, worldly threats of p. Dig., in 9 Mo. decisions West’s sec. cited [See judgment question is ultimate whether on his own the accused acts employed volition uninfluenced methods and devices Williamson, officers which the law denounced. [State 1038, 1044, 79(1).] assignment complains appellant’s One the refusal re quested E on alibi. think No. Instruction Instruction 7 sub fully mitted the State covered this defense. failing For the error in to instruct voluntariness of
appellant’s confessions, judgment re- reversed and the cause manded.
All concur. Trading at the relation a Cor of Missouri Company, Post poration, Relator, Hopkins Ewing B. C. Shain, Bland Judges City Ap Kansas Cour t Robert M. Reynolds,
peals, and Stella F. Stanfill. 99. Two, 3,May
Division 1938. Wright.. L. Henry Gonrad¡ Durham, -E. Lee Con- Hus M. n n rad relator. *2 R. Raymond respondents. James Sullivan Hume & WESTHUES, quash C. Belator seeks record City Appeals Trading Kansas the case Court in of Stanfill Company, corporation, reported -952, Post theory controlling is in conflict with decisions this court. Company, Post Trading relator, in that sued .case alleged she damages which personal recover Post Trading operated result fall in a store as the of a sustained insufficient evidence was Company. Relator’s contention Company, and Trading Post liability part to establish of- sufficient, Appeals that contravened it was holding réspond- stated in The facts were controlling decisions of this court. ents’ as-follows: ‘‘ defend- hand, plaintiff, a customer Reverting the case making purchase of purpose of entered said for the ant’s store south -side There was a meat counter on the merchandise. coun- center bn sides of store there store. both were vegetables- groceries display racks, ters and: -there is testi- day question, February 13, 1935, display. On the fallen of rain had mony air and trace that there moisture (cid:127); *3 day. during the behalf, shortly after plaintiff in her own that at “The testified p. purchases went first she store to make and entered defendant’s m. side, seeing what and at-the time the meat counter on the south not to go the groceries to south and market wanted,.concluded to side she vegetables intent to to counter later. She return the meat and way slipped the south side and that on to the she further testified thereby received for which here- fell on the floor and she (plaintiff) The enter- complains. testified defendant proceeding going to meat and ing counter to . any she evidence of she side, not notice the conditions'that south did repeatedly to fall. She she slip claims caused her reiterated that testified, looking ‘I look floor. She wasn’t at floor. did not at the meats, display groceries going to meat looking I at the was counter.’ ‘‘ first notice had of the con- plaintiff The testified that she slip. after started to When dition of she asked what was ‘ said, dirty, bruised, fall she was slip. her to caused There floor.’ When celery stalks lettuce leaves asked as mushy foreign floor, the witness appearance of to the substance mashed, said, ‘Well, dark and and the floor was it was wet and I me my went from under stepped on it and foot I.fell.’ ‘‘ slipped heel that her left plaintiff about two half The stated and a the lettuce leaves some of on her was heel after she feet and that there fell. ‘ ‘ the, following plaintiff, questions cross-examination appear: answers “ opened When you door to enter Conrad): ‘Q. (By Mr. open your vision, to was there the floor it not? the store A. Yes, sir.
“ ‘Q. any evidence you you And went into store did see A. Well, pay any of moisture there? I attention the floor. didn’t I I looking to the across to the meat counter. didn’t look down floor. ' ‘ ‘ - Q. you any all ? A. I Did see there was there' at whether pay didn’t any attention it then. “ any ‘Q. you You didn’t see water then as went the store? pay A. I any didn’t attention to it. “ ‘Q. pay any You didn’t attention to A. No, it? sir. ‘‘‘ n Q. you But, in fact, any did water there ? A. No. see “ ‘Q. you any No, Did observe evidences of moisture there ? A. sir. ‘“ Q. fact, you But knew, you not, as a matter all did that in coming probability there was moisture the street into store? n ’ thought anything A. I never about it. “The was-confronted on cross-examination-with what was report given termed accident two men her who called n two about weeks after the accident. ‘‘ (cid:127) above report The is shown to be a of an interview when n hospital signed was in the by plaintiff. and was made having denial as purported concerning said what was condition- statement, made ‘I don’t remember I answered what ’ ; day, I because was too sick. “We have confined outline of to the alone. demurrer particular point in this ease was suf- the evidénce rélated justify ficient to inference matter was floor a sufficient time to impart the-operators *4 causing negligence? a failure to remove to In constitute - disposing respondents’ this point of states: ' by “It is shown the that upon evidence the vegetables display in vicinity plaintiff prepared the fell of where place were another at the where unsalable leaves and stalks were pro- left and the salable placed they inspection duce was where purchase were by fact, From this customers. we conclude that the aiid bruised dark- by remaining conditions could be caused ened on the floor for such a length of time to cause this mashed and darkened condition to be by walking- customers on in making occasioned same inspection and purchases. considered, being we “The above conclude if that the most favor- part the able evidence be plaintiff on of considered and all contradic- tory part on evidence the defendant disregarded, of there is shown permitted that presented question to have been facts the of to go jury. that' foreign to must be if the said the conceded substance neg- length impart notice, the time of to there a been sufficient had thereby established.
ligence defendant the -follows: opinion, stated as portion of the .court In another storekeeper to duty that law of “It is the this basis master servant. not same as that to rest customers does slip sustaining fall upon burden is customer a However, foreign produce the floor evidence ping upon to substance reasonably inferred foreign be which notice as to the substance can [McKeighan impart to notice. have been there for a sufficient time to Inc., Kline’s, 555.]” holding that the evidence respondents’ -opinion, Relator asserts justified foreign upon finding been that the substance had length impart notice, sufficient in conflict with the of time to re- McKeighan Inc., supra. this we think holding in In Kline’s view, eases, take the evidence lator correct. From the two we McKeighan potent be- case more than that the case now was McKeighan plaintiff -the sued to dam- fore us. case recover ages sustained a fall in a vestibule of defendant’s There store. was, grease ves- evidence that into customers tracked oil and had alley; raining tibule from that it had been and the streets wet; something plaintiff clothing, had sidewalks that on her. fall, “slimy grease;” after the like looked that there awas upon floor, mark foot in length, about a the heel ..made plaintiff’s shoe, slipped. where plaintiff she had testified slipped when she she “the sliding through had sensation of some- ’’ court, holding This thing, in. evidence was insufficient jury for the notice, on the of -constructive make said: was no as-to ho.wlong, .“There evidence condition as', Mrs., by plaintiff described had plain.:- Rundus existed before vestibule; tiff entered the physical there no it .was evidence that any appreciable length time; had respect existed during of traffic volume noon busy hour- was heavy. it particularly plaintiff burden was affirm- atively of time the show condition had existed defendant, wholly and that conjecture.” matter is left instances, noted in both when the It.will McKeighan case fell and when the in this case sustained injuries, raining her had been sidewalks were wet. grease In the case oil and been had tracked a vesti- bule. In this case slipped celery lettuce leaves and vegetable matter, plaintiff’s stalk...This fall, after a bruised *5 and darkened condition. in respondents’ It is said opinion that: “. . . The bruised darkened and conditions be could caused remaining on the floor length for such a of time as this cause
593 condition be customers darkened occasioned walk- mashed ” . ours.) (Italics ing (cid:127). on same. may be inference drawn from conceded such an could be necessary evidence, length con but the to create such time a Again speculation. a other inferences dition would be matter just example, well from For as be drawn could evidence.. plaintiff stepped upon celery mashing it stalk and in dirty condition; or, per soiled floor in darkened rendered a haps may dropped a refuse have some of unsalable collector vegetable matter, opinion, upon to in respondents’ referred second, minute, hour before plaintiff an fell. It seems to us vegetable this evidence leaves of time the got matter there, specula or how it a matter of conjecture. guess good tion and One be another. as would McKeighan our mentioned above-that in evidence potent. The being case was more reason that it least would take at grease track oil time customers to from the street in store. But this matter, plain case the which caused fall, may tiff’s dropped upon have been floor a two second or before fell. this court directly case in point respondents’ opinion upon similar state of facts directly contrary. [2] Again this court has frequently held, harmony law, with the rule well-established introduce-, that a order to his recover must evidence that through negligence were sustained defendant;-that justifies where the drawn,.-one two be of which inferences justify not, plaintiff’s would a verdict for other must fail. This Fryer court so v. held St. Louis-San Francisco Co., 333 740, 55, l. c. court Railroad where this quoted approval following Supreme, from Court of the United States: by the Supreme
“As said in New States, United Ambrose, York Central 486, v. Sup. Railroad Co. 280 50 Ct. U. S. 199, 198, 74 l. c. L. 562: Ed. “ ‘It only upon speculation follows that the verdict rests and con jecture, [Chicago, cannot Ry. be allowed to stand. M. & St. P. Coogan, 478, 271 U. 564, S. Ct. L. 472, Sup. 1041, Ed. ] eases cited. “ ‘The utmost that can said may accident have 're any one of sulted several causes, some of the com pany responsible, and for it- some which was not.' This is enough.’ [See, Delaware, also, Lynch L. & (C. W. Railroad Co. A.), 177; Pennsylvania C. 58 Fed. Co. Railroad v. Chamber lain, 333, 53 Sup. Ct. L. U. Ed. *6 Act, but Inspection Federal Boiler That case under the Louis, v. St. negligence ordinary eases. same in [See Fritz
rule i.sthe 78; Coble 74, 148 S. W. l. c. 62, 243 Mo. Co., S. Railroad I. M. & 1031, l. c. (2d) 38 W. Co., Railroad S. v. St. Louis-San Francisco 236, (2d) 7); Co., 53 W. (4, Doughton Refining S. v. Marland (4-6), c. 241 331 Mo. l. sup Attorneys respondents numbér chses for have cited a justified finding port theory the evidence their length of time floor a matter been sufficient had cases au the defendant. do not these impart find materially were' different. thority position their facts because the Co., Louis-San example, in Harrison v. St. Francisco Railroad For dip existence (2d) 841, 821, 339 Mo. the railroad 99 W. was shown of an accident. track was cause 'dip and months 'such a' accumulate. that it take weeks would Bridge Co., Doyle Terminal v. St. Louis Merchants’ Railroad plaintiff tripped 326 Mo. S. W. over' a wire firmly yards. shown that wire the railroad It was had been ground ground; had been embedded in at this worn-solid inference, justifying only been point by use, one wire had' long circumstances, facts, proven time. such No there now under consideration. ’ respondents opinion conclusion that is in conflict with the < It is our Kline’s, supra, this court case of Inc., other cases. record and Ap- well as quashed. It is peals Cooley so ordered. must therefore Boh- ling, CG., concur. foregoing opinion C., PER CURIAM: The adopt- Westhues All judges of the court. as the concur.
ed Davis, Appellant. 110. v. Tom Two, May 3, Division 1938.