Urie v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 08 March 1948
• Docket Number: 39908
• Citation: 210 S.W.2d 98,357 Mo. 738
• Parties: William T. Urie v. Guy A. Thompson, Trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

210 S.W.2d 98

357 Mo. 738

William T. Urie v. Guy A. Thompson, Trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 39908

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 8, 1948

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1948.

Appeal from Cass Circuit Court; Hon. Leslie E. Bruce Judge.

Reversed.

Thomas J. Cole, Gardner Smith, D. C. Chastain, Lyman J. Bishop, H E. Sheppard and Patterson, Chastain, Cowherd & Smith for appellant.

(1) The petition does not state and the facts do not show a cause of action under the Boiler Inspection Act. The proposition that dust from sand applied to the rails or from the ballast is harmful to the fireman in an open cab of a moving engine is a novel one, and the petition discloses no special circumstance which would give the defendant notice of such alleged harmful effects. Sweany v. Wabash Ry. Co., 229 Mo.App. 393, 80 S.W.2d 216; Wolf v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 336 Mo. 746, 81 S.W.2d 323; Mobile & O.P. Co. v. Clay, 165 So. 819. (2) Safety appliance acts are directed at the prevention of accidental injury. No cause of action for an occupational disease can be based thereon. United States v. B. & O.R. Co., 293 U.S. 454, 55 S.Ct. 268; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 272 U.S. 605, 47 S.Ct. 207; St. Louis-S.F.R. Co. v. Conarty, 253 U.S. 273, 35 S.Ct. 785; Mansfield v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 294 U.S. 235. (3) The court did not err in holding that: "In the former review this court did not treat with a contention that 'silicosis' is not an evil at which the Act is aimed." And in refusing to treat former decision as the law of the case. Urie v. Thompson, 352 Mo. 211, 176 S.W.2d 471; Crossno v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, 333 Mo. 733, 62 S.W.2d 1094; Poe v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 339 Mo. 1025, 99 S.W.2d 82; Dunn v. Alton R. Co., 340 Mo. 1037, 104 S.W.2d 311; Hogan v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 222 Mo. 1103, 19 S.W.2d 707. (4) The court did not err in holding that: "If none of the consequences which a statutory enactment was designed to guard against has resulted from its breach, such a breach does not constitute an actionable wrong, even though some other injurious consequences has resulted." 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, sec. 163, p. 834; 2 Restatement of Law of Torts, sec. 286, p. 752; 45 C.J., Negligence, sec. 111, pp. 726-7; Mansfield v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 294 Mo. 235, 242 S.W. 400; Huckleberry v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 324 Mo. 1025, 26 S.W.2d 980; Illinois State Trust Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 319 Mo. 608, 5 S.W.2d 369. (5) The court did not err in holding as to the Boiler Inspection Act: "Yet the Act, imposing an absolute duty to use safe equipment, should justly be interpreted as imposing the duty to keep the equipment safe in the protection from those injuries within the fair meaning of the language used." Title 45, U.S.C.A., Secs. 23 and 32. Johnson v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 196 U.S. 1, 25 S.Ct. 158; United States v. American Trucking Assn., 310 U.S. 534, 60 S.Ct. 1059. (6) The court did not err in holding: "There is a definite differentiation generally, in the adjudicated cases, between 'accidental injury' . . . and pneumoconiosis (including silicosis), . . . attributable to the effects of the inhalation of harmful dusts over a period of time." 1 Words and Phrases, Accident, pp. 250, 299; 29 Words and Phrases, Occupational Disease, pp. 165, 169; Smith v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., 340 Mo. 389, 10 S.W.2d 909; Bolosino v. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co., 124 S.W.2d 581; Wurst v. Am. Car & Foundry Co., 103 S.W.2d 6; Morris-Landis, Diseases of the Chest (6th Ed.), p. 568; Wolf v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 336 Mo. 746, 81 S.W.2d 323; Brodek v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am., 292 Ill.App. 363, 11 N.E.2d 228; McIntyre v. E.J. Lavino & Co., 344 Pa. 163, 25 A.2d 163. (7) The court did not err in holding as to the Boiler Inspection Act: "It seems to us the Act . . . is aimed at promoting safety from accidental injury, as distinguished from injury due to the gradual inhalation of harmful dusts." 45 U.S.C.A., Secs. 23 and 32. Note: "Construction and application of Federal Boiler Inspection Act." 80 L.Ed. 743; 2 Roberts, Federal Liabilities of Carriers (2nd Ed.), sec. 501, pp. 1023-1026; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 47 S.Ct. 207, reversing C. & N.W.R. Co. v. R. Comm. of Wis., 188 Wis. 232, 205 N.W. 932; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Mich. Pub. Utilities Comm., 233 Mich. 676, 208 N.W. 62, reversed per stipulation, 273 U.S. 779, 47 S.Ct. 448; United States v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 293 U.S. 454, 55 S.Ct. 268, and subsequent order, Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 222 I.C.C. 542, pp. 553, 565, 568; Johnson v. A., T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 225 I.C.C. 519, 551.

Samuel L. Trusty, Louis N. Wolf, W. M. Anderson, David Trusty, Guy W. Green and Trusty & Pugh for respondent.

(1) Matters not assigned as error, or in the motion for new trial, are not subject to review. Eisenbarth v. Powell Bros. Tr. Ln., 161 S.W.2d 263; Gray v. Kurn, 345 Mo. 1027, 137 S.W.2d 558; Johnson v. Forgerty Bldg. Co., 194 S.W.2d 924; Heigold v. United Rys. Co., 308 Mo. 142, 271 S.W. 773; Scott v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 333 Mo. 374, 62 S.W.2d 834; Gottschalk v. Wells, 214 S.W. 399; Bakewell v. Clemens, 190 S.W.2d 912; Hoffman v. Hogan, 152 S.W.2d 1046. (2) Assumption of risk is no defense to a case under the Boiler Inspection Act. Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 317 U.S. 487. (3) The Boiler Inspection Act covers silicosis. The point is res judicata. Urie v. Thompson, supra; Sadowski v. Long Island R. Co., supra; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 47 S.Ct. 207. (4) Appellant admits the evidence created a question of fact for the jury. Lavender v. Kurn, 66 S.Ct. 740; I. C.C. Rules 116 (a) and 120; Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., supra; Urie v. Thompson, supra; Wommack v. Orr, 176 S.W.2d 477; Sadowski v. Long Island R. Co., supra; Smith v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 189 S.W.2d 244. (5) Alleged errors, not briefed or argued by appellant, are not reviewable. Laughlin v. Boatmen's Natl. Bank, 189 S.W.2d 974; Wells v. City of Jefferson, 132 S.W.2d 1006; Turner v. Browne, 351 Mo. 541, 173 S.W.2d 868; Womack v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 337 Mo. 1160, 88 S.W.2d 368; Clay v. Owen, 338 Mo. 1061, 93 S.W.2d 914; Dickson v. Maddox, 48 S.W.2d 873; Burris v. Bowers, 352 Mo. 1152, 181 S.W.2d 520; Cook v. Day, 172 S.W.2d 648; Rule 1.08, Supreme Court of Missouri. (6) The petition is not defective. Notice is not necessary: Urie v. Thompson, 176 S.W.2d l.c. 475; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Stephens, supra; McCarthy v. Penn. R. Co., 156 F.2d 877; Sallee v. St. L.S.F.R. Co., 12 S.W.2d 476. (7) The opinion of Division One is in conflict with previous decisions of this court and controlling federal decisions. Urie v. Thompson, 176 S.W.2d 471; Kilburn v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 1017. (8) The Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Boiler Inspection Act are in pari materia and must be construed together since the former confers the right of action and draws the latter to it where injury results from an unsafe locomotive and a right of action is conferred for "injury" without limitation. Tipton v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co., 298 U.S. 141, 56 S.Ct. 715; Chap. 29, Mo. R.S.A.; B. & O.R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 45 S.Ct. 169; San Antonio, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U.S. 476, 36 S.Ct. 626; Lilly v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 317 U.S. 480, 87 L.Ed. 411; McCarthy v. Pa. R. Co., 156 F.2d 877; Kilburn v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 1017; Drew v. Frisco Ry. Co., 293 S.W. 468; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Branson, 98 A. 225; Sadowski v. Long I. R. Co., 292 N.Y. 448, 55 N.E.2d 497; C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cheek, 231 P. 1078; Sweaney v. Wabash Ry. Co.; A. Coast Lines R. Co. v. Wheeler, 132 S.E. 517; Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Chandler, 192 S.W.2d 304; Rowsi v. Thomas F. Jackson Co., 196 A. 617; Marsh v. Industrial Comm. of Calif., 217 Cal. 338, 18 P.2d 933; Wurst v. American Car & Foundry Co., 103 S.W.2d 6. (9) The Boiler Inspection Act does not expressly or impledly limit or restrict the term "injury" as used in Sec. 51, Title 45, U.S.C.A., to injury by accident. 46 Cong. R., part 1, p. 729, January 10, 1911; Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 317 U.S. 480, 87 L.Ed. 411; Kilburn v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 1017; In re Claim of A. E. Clark, 27 Op. At. Gen. 346 (Opinions of Solicitor General, Department of Labor, April, 1915); In re Claim of Willard E. Jule, July 28, 1913, Opinions of Solicitor, Dept. of Labor, April, 1915, p. 261. (10) Since Section 51 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act and Section 23 of the Boiler Inspection Act are clear on their face, extraneous matters need not be resorted to for construction. Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U.S. 414, 20 S.Ct. 155; Gemsco, Inc., v. Walling, 65 S.Ct. 605, 324 U.S. 244, 89 L.Ed. 921; United States v. Rice, 327 U.S. 742, 66 S.Ct. 835; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. B. & O.R. Co., 67 S.Ct. 1387. (11) Controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States hold that one of the purposes of the Boiler Inspection Act is to promote safety by preventing the impairment of health of enginemen. Napier v. A. Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 47 S.Ct. 207; United States v. B. & O.R. Co., 293 U.S. 454, 55 S.Ct. 268. (12) The true test of a right of recovery for violation of safety appliance acts is whether the failure to comply with the statute is a proximate cause of the injury. L. & N.R. Co. v. Layton, 244 U.S. 617, 37 S.Ct. 456; Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 64; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 482. (13) Even though plaintiff may not recover for the violation of the Boiler Inspection Act, the evidence is sufficient to warrant a recovery for breach of defendant's common law duty. Holmes v. McNeil, 203 S.W.2d 665.

OPINION

Van Osdol, C.

Action under...