Friel v. Citizens' Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1893
• Citation: 115 Mo. 503,22 S.W. 498
• Parties: FRIEL v. CITIZENS' RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

22 S.W. 498

115 Mo. 503

FRIEL v. CITIZENS' RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 8, 1893.

INJURY TO EMPLOYE — DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES.

A master is not liable to his servant for injuries alleged to have been caused by defective appliances, where such appliances are reasonably safe, if prudently used, though better ones could be obtained.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Leroy B. Valliant, Judge.

Action by Patrick Friel against the Citizens' Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. D. Laughlin and Gibson, Bond & Gibson, for appellant. Smith P. Galt, for respondent.

BLACK, C. J.

The defendant is a corporation operating a street cable railroad in the city of St. Louis. While the plaintiff was in the employ of defendant and in the discharge of his duties as gripman a car ran over his legs, injuring them so that it became necessary to amputate one, and the other was seriously injured; and this is a suit to recover damages for such injuries. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence, and the case is here to review that ruling. The substance of the petition is that defendant furnished an improper grip appliance, because of which the train started with a jerk, and at full speed; and that a hook provided for the purpose of raising the cable was too short. The evidence of the plaintiff shows that he had been in the employ of the defendant in the capacity of gripman for about one year. At the time of the accident he had charge of a grip car. The cable dropped from his grip, and he signaled the conductor to come to his assistance. He then got down in front of the car with a hook in his hand, provided for his use. He says he got down to raise the cable; that when he raised it, the conductor clasped it with the grip; and that the grip car jumped forward, and knocked him down. As to the hook, his evidence is to the effect that with a longer one the person using it could stand on the grip car, and in that way raise the cable without getting in front of the car; that longer hooks were used on one or two cars; that the one he used was the same in length as those he had used for a year, and the same as used on the other cars, with one or two exceptions. His cross-examination shows that longer hooks had not been used on the cars at the time of the accident; that he had only seen them at the power house. Indeed, it does not appear that long hooks were used on more than two cars after the accident. It seems the defendant had formerly used what are called "compound dies," — that is to say, dies made of a compound of metals, — the dies being placed in the jaws of the grip appliance to catch the cable. At the time of the accident the company was using tempered steel dies, which were harder than the others....