Jennings v. Swift & Co.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1908
• Citation: 110 S.W. 21,130 Mo. App. 391
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: JENNINGS v. SWIFT & CO.

110 S.W. 21

130 Mo. App. 391

JENNINGS v. SWIFT & CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 4, 1908.

1. MASTER AND SERVANT — ACTION FOR INJURIES — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Plaintiff was an employé in the fire department of a large packing plant. To familiarize him with the fire routes, a superintendent directed him to go over a certain route with which plaintiff was unfamiliar, pointing out a certain door as the entrance thereto. The door indicated was not the entrance to the fire route, but opened directly into a vat of boiling water, and plaintiff while going over that route for the first time before daylight by the aid of a lantern stepped into the vat, which was unlighted, and

was injured. Held, that he was not negligent in attempting to pass through the door, as he was not bound to anticipate the presence of an unguarded vat immediately inside it.

2. DAMAGES — INSTRUCTIONS.

In an action for personal injuries, where defendant did not request a charge confining the jury in assessing damages to expenses necessarily or reasonably incurred, and there was no contest on that head, and the evidence was unquestioned, defendant could not complain because an instruction on the measure of damages did not so confine the jury.

3. EVIDENCE — STATEMENTS AGAINST INTEREST — WEIGHT.

Admissions by plaintiff against his interest made while testifying are not to be taken as conclusively true.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; C. A. Mosman, Judge.

Action by John Jennings against Swift & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. A. Brown, for appellant. C. C. Crow and Mytton & Parkinson, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This action was instituted to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant. Plaintiff prevailed in the trial court.

Defendant is the owner and operator of a large meat packing establishment in St. Joseph, and in connection therewith maintains and operates a fire department therein. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in such department, and, being a new employé, he was being shown or taught the fire routes (six in number) in addition to other service connected therewith. This was done by sending him over the routes so as to familiarize him with them. He had been engaged only about nine days, had learned some of the routes, and was told by the superintendent of that department to go over route 3, and the superintendent pointed out a door which he said was the entrance thereto. Under the order of the superintendent, plaintiff started to go over the route before it was light on the morning of November 14th, and took a lantern with him. The door he had been told to enter was not the right one, and, as he opened it and took a step, he plunged or fell into a vat of hot water which was in the floor immediately at the door on the inside. His leg was badly scalded. The plaintiff stated in testimony that, on entering the door he had been told was the one to enter, "the first step I stepped off, just like that [indicating] and I just went right down in scalding water."

Complaint is made of the action of the court on defendant's instructions. First. It is insisted that a demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained on account of plaintiff's contributory negligence in carelessly entering, or attempting to pass through, the door. We can see no...