Stapleton v. Furniture Exhibition Building Co.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Bird, Brooke, Clark, Kuhn, Moore, Sharpe, Steere, Stone
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Mississippi
Related Laws
Outcome
The court affirmed the dismissal of the claimant's workers' compensation claim for want of jurisdiction, holding that the application for review was not filed within one year of the last compensation payment as required by the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act.
Excerpt
Error to Kent; McDonald (John S.), J. Case by Mary A. Stapleton, administratrix of the estate of Thomas J. Stapleton, deceased, against the Furniture Exhibition Building Company for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s decedent. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Plaintiff brought this suit as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Thomas. J. Stapleton, and recovered a verdict of $21,702.62 as damages. The defendant company was the lessee of the Furniture Exhibition Building in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, where regular semi-annual furniture exhibitions were'shown. These exhibitions seem to have extended over a number of years, although each one lasted little more than one month, so that the building was practically idle during the remainder of the year. On July 8, 1916, one of these semi-annual displays was in progress and the plaintiff’s decedent, a furniture salesman, had gone to the sixth floor of the building on a matter of business. On the completion, of his errand, he stepped into the elevator to descend, to the main floor, when the cage dropped the full distance to the bottom of the shaft, instantly killing Mr. Stapleton and the operator, the only other occupant of the elevator. The investigation showed that the elevator, which, had been installed 17 or 18 years previous to this time, was a cage weighing about a ton and that it was hoisted in the shaft with a 30 H. P. motor which controlled the cables attached to its top. It was at this important point in the mechanism that the primary trouble occurred..- The object to which the cables were fastened was a large, wrought-iron bolt (known as a “draw-bolt” or “king-bolt”), about one inch in diameter. The portion of the bolt which was plainly in sight was U-shaped or clevis-shaped, and it was to the prongs of this clevis that the cables for hoisting the elevator and also the cables connected with the counterweight were attached. Immediately below the U o
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
constructive discharge, hostile work environment, reverse racial discrimination, negligent hiring/retention/supervision
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant school district for her alleged constructive discharge from employment as a teacher. The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for approximately twenty-four years when she resigned from her position in August, 2019. On December 19, 2019, she filed an age discrimination complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). There- after, the CHRO issued a release of jurisdiction over the complaint, and the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant, alleging a violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.), constructive discharge, and breach of contract. The plaintiff, who was seventy years old, claimed that she was forced to resign after the defendant created an intolerable work environment by marginalizing and unfairly criticizing her because it wanted to replace her with a younger teacher. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that it was untimely and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, and, thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging only constructive discharge. In that complaint, the plaintiff added allegations related to a report issued by the defendant on June 10, 2019, in which it acknowledged that an assistant principal had copied certain portions of the plaintiff's prior evaluations into her 2016–2017 school year evaluation and recommended a review of adminis- trators' practices of referencing evaluations from prior years. The defen- dant filed a motion to strike, which the trial court granted, finding that the plaintiff's complaint to the CHRO was untimely pursuant to the 180 day limitation period set forth in the applicable statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 46a-82 (f)), because the plaintiff had failed to identify conduct relating to an intolerable working environment that had persisted to June 22, 2019, o
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.