McCullen v. Fishell Bros. Amusement Co.

Unknown CourtDecember 4, 1917Cited 5 times

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Allen, Becker, Reynolds
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal
State: Tennessee

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Tennessee Supreme Court reversed a $3,700 jury verdict in favor of an injured minor employee and remanded for a new trial because plaintiff's counsel improperly injected the issue of the employer's liability insurance into the trial despite repeated rulings that such evidence was incompetent.

Excerpt

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. —Hon. Thomas G. Hennings, Judge! (1) The petition does not state cause of action. It alleges that appellant maintained an open trapdoor and that deceased, while lawfully on the premises, fell through same. There is no allegation of an invitation. The owner of premises owes no duty-to trespassers or mere licensees to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition. O’Brien v. Western Steel, 100 Mo. 182; Straub v. Soderer, 53 Mo. 38; Schmidt v. Kansas City Distilling Co., 90 Mo. 284; Whittee v. Stifel, 126 Mo. 295; Butz v. Cavan'agh, 137 Mo. 503; Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Mo. 535; Sterger v. Yan Sticklen, 132 N. Y. 490; McG-ill v. Compton, —111. 327; Evansville v. Terre Haute R. R., 100 Ind. 221; Muench v. Heinemann, 96 N. W. (Wis.) 800; Ryerson v. Bathgate, 51 Atl. 708; Manning v. Railroad, 16 L. R. A. 271; Redigan v. Railroad, 14 L. R. A. 276, (2) (a) The peremptory instruction asked by appellant should have been given. While there was testimony that appellant was to receive a portion of the receipts of the firm of Wilson & Jones, there was no evidence that appellant was to take any part in the business of said firm or share the losses thereof. Therefore, there was no partnership relation between the firm of Wilson & Jones and appellant. Maclrie v. Mott, 146 Mo. 230; Sille Hardware & Iron Co. v. McCleverty, 89 Mo. App. 154; Mulholland v. Rapp, 50 Mo. 42; Bank of Odessa v. Jennings, 18 Mo. App. 65; Hansom v. Jones, 20 Mo. App. 595; Weise v. Moore, 22 Mo. App. 530 ; Hach v. Hill, 160 Mo. 18; Lockhart y. Forsythe, 49 Mo. App. 654; Ileyerle v. Hunt, 50 Mo. App. 541. (b) The firm of Wilson & Jones, while operating on the stage of appellant’s theater, was operating as an independent contractor, and appellant was not liable for any negligence on the part of said firm. Burns v. McDonald, 57 Mo. App. 599; Kaiser v. Suppe, 133 Mo, App. 29; Burnes v. Railroad, 129 Mo. 41; Byre v. Jordan, 111 Mo. 428. (

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This 1917 case involved a tragic workplace accident at an amusement company. A worker died after falling through an open trapdoor on the property owned by Fishell Bros. Amusement Co. The deceased worker's family sued the company, claiming the business was negligent for maintaining dangerous conditions and should pay damages for the death. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled against the worker's family and in favor of the amusement company. The judge determined that Fishell Bros. had no legal responsibility for the worker's safety because there was no evidence the company had specifically invited or encouraged the worker to be in that dangerous area. Additionally, the court found that since the work was being done by an independent contractor, the property owner wasn't liable for workplace accidents. **Why This Matters for Workers** This old ruling reflects outdated workplace safety standards that gave workers much less protection than today's laws. Modern workplace safety regulations now require employers to maintain safe working conditions regardless of whether workers are "invited" into specific areas. Today's workers have significantly stronger legal protections, workers' compensation systems, and safety requirements that didn't exist in 1917.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Read Full Opinion More Prewitt-Spurr Manufacturing Co. Rulings All Rulings

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.