Sadie Roberts v. Epicure Foods Company

In this action plaintiff alleged that in February 1957 she became afflicted with a condition of painful, permanent dermatitis
upon both hands which resulted from the failure of defendant (her former employer) to provide her "with a reasonably safe
place and method in which to work" in certain respects in the petition specified. She sought to recover damages in the sum
of $25,000. Plaintiff has appealed from an order and judgment of the trial court sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss,
with prejudice. There is no contention that plaintiff's petition, on its face, does not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The motion to dismiss alleged that (1) defendant was a major employer operating under the provisions of the Missouri Workmen's
Compensation Act, (2) on January 1, 1957, it elected to bring itself within the provisions of Chapter 287 (unless otherwise
stated all statutory references are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) with respect to occupational disease and thereafter filed notice
with the Division of Workmen's Compensation of its said election and "thereafter notice was duly posted in the premises of
this defendant" of said election, (3) defendant purchased a policy of workmen's compensation insurance on January 1, 1957,
and was fully insured upon all the dates mentioned in the petition, (4) that plaintiff's remedy, if any, is under the Missouri
Workmen's Compensation Law and she "is not entitled to maintain this suit at common law," and (5) "defendant paid plaintiff
and plaintiff accepted from defendant weekly compensation at the rate of $35.00 per week for 16 weeks from the 27th day of
June, 1957, through the 16th day of October, 1957, in the total amount of $490.00 and furnished plaintiff medical aid and
* * * that all of said payments were made under and by virtue of the terms, requirements and provisions of the Workmen's Compensation
Law of Missouri; that plaintiff accepted same and has not tendered same back to defendant and that plaintiff is therefore
estopped to question or deny the applicability of said Workmen's Compensation Law to the facts in this case."