Lore v. American Mfg. Co.

Decision Date12 March 1901
PartiesLORE v. AMERICAN MFG. CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

2. An act of the general assembly approved April 20, 1891, declares that all dangerous shafting and gearing in manufacturing establishments shall be safely guarded. Held, that where the rods protecting the gearing had become bent so as to produce an opening which the sheet iron within the rods did not guard, and plaintiff, in passing around the machine in the discharge of her duty, slipped on the floor, rendered slippery from the spraying of oil from the machinery, and her hand passed through the opening in the guard, and was crushed in the cogwheels, she was entitled to recover; the master being guilty of negligence, under the statute, in not maintaining a proper guard.

3. There was no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff was not chargeable with the action of former employés who had bent the rods by taking hold of them to prevent themselves slipping on the floor while passing about the machine, the rods having been bent when plaintiff was employed.

5. A contention that there could be no recovery, in that plaintiff assumed the risk of falling on the floor, and that such fall was the proximate cause of the injury, was without merit, since, though she had fallen, she would not have been injured had it not been for the negligence of the master in failing to properly guard the gearing.

6. In an action for injuries sustained by reason of plaintiff's hand being caught in cogwheels which were insufficiently guarded, it was proper to refuse an instruction that the employer does not guaranty or insure the employé against injury from machinery, but he discharges the measure of his duty if he provides such guards for the protection of the employés as a person of ordinary care would deem sufficient, since the instruction called for a less degree of care than that required by the statute.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.

Action by Rose Colliott Lore against the American Manufacturing Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is a civil action for damages to plaintiff, an employé in a jute factory owned and operated by defendant, on the 24th of November, 1894, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant in failing to safely guard its gearing on a machine used for spinning jute in the manufacture of bagging, as required by an act of the general assembly approved April 20, 1891, and in permitting the guard to said gearing to become and remain out of repair, whereby plaintiff's right hand and forearm were, without fault on her part, thrown through said guard and into the cogwheels and gearing of said machine, and were torn, lacerated, and crushed. The answer was a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,750, from which defendant appeals.

The facts appear to be that at the time of the accident plaintiff was a girl about 16 years old. She brought the action soon after she reached her majority. The cause was tried in 1896, upon a special jury, and she was awarded $2,000. Defendant appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, and that court, for error in the instructions, reversed and remanded the cause. The case is reported as Colliott v. Manufacturing Co., 71 Mo. App. 163. Since then plaintiff has married, and her present name is Rose Lore. There is little, if any, conflict in the evidence. Plaintiff was employed at the time of the accident as a spinner in the defendant's factory or bagging mill, known as the "Southern Mills," in the city of St. Louis. The machine by which she was injured is a large machine, some 19 feet in length and about 4 feet wide, and is known as a "spinning machine." It is operated by two girls, — the spinner, who is ordinarily in front, and the end minder, whose ordinary position is in the rear; but it is the duty of both girls to keep the machine running, and to pass around the frame to help one another whenever necessary. The material used is what is commercially known as "jute butts," which is manufactured into bagging for covering bales of cotton. In the rear of the machine are 48 cans filled with this material in the form of long strings called "sliver," which are carried through the machine from the rear to the front in the process of spinning. This sliver is loose and flimsy, and easily parted, and it is the business of the two girls to watch and "fix up" the ends whenever they break down; that is to say, whenever one of the strings of sliver happens to break, there is what is known as an "end," which has to be fixed up by the operators. Ordinarily, it is the duty of the spinner to fix up the ends in the front, and of the end minder in the rear, but it frequently happens that a number of ends break down at once in the rear of the machine, and it is necessary on these occasions, in order to keep the machine running, for the spinner to pass around to the rear, and help the end minder put them up. In behalf of plaintiff at the trial was produced the testimony of plaintiff herself and five other employés of the factory, spinners and end minders, all of whom testified that it was the duty of the spinners and end minders to help one another in their work whenever it was necessary in order to keep the machine running, and to pass around the machine, whenever necessary, for that purpose. The floor of the factory is conceded to have been very slippery, — so much so as to be very hard to walk upon, — and persons walking were liable to slip and fall at any moment. The jute material was prepared for spinning with an oil, which was rubbed into the floor by the constant sweeping of the waste jute over the floor, and there was also a considerable quantity of oil which was used for lubricating the machinery which was thrown off upon the floor, and rubbed in in the same manner. The driving machinery or gearing of the machine was located at one end, — being the end opposite to plaintiff's ordinary position in operating the machine, — and was located on a narrow passage between plaintiff's machine and the next machine in the same row. This passage was only about two feet wide, or barely wide enough to allow the girls to pass through in the discharge of their ordinary duties; and, in order to protect the employés passing through this narrow aisle from the cogwheels at the end of plaintiff's machine, there was placed in front of and around this gearing a guard, consisting of vertical iron rods about three-eighths of an inch in thickness, fixed above and below to iron bars or crosspieces. These rods or guard wires in front of the gearing were located about an inch and one-half apart, and were made of soft iron, round, and about three feet in length; but prior to the accident to plaintiff several of these rods or wires had become bent, so as to produce a considerable opening just at the corner of the machine, which was large enough to allow the hand of any ordinary person who might fall on the slippery floor to pass through so as to come into contact with the dangerous cogwheels or gearing of the machine. Several of plaintiff's witnesses testified that the opening was large enough to allow the first volume of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889 to be passed through in the direction of its thickness. According to all the witnesses, the opening which existed beforehand was several inches wide, and large enough to allow plaintiff's hand to easily pass through. The opening was probably produced by the employés who had been working on the machine in previous years taking hold of the wires in order to hold themselves up and keep themselves from falling upon the slippery floor in going around the machine, and there is some testimony going to show that this has been the custom of some of the girls in the factory. That this custom is probably the cause of the opening is indicated by the fact that the opening was located just at the corner, which was the place where the employés were in the habit of taking hold of the wires in passing around the machine. Owing to the greasy floor, there was danger of slipping, and consequently of falling, just at the corner, and at the place where this opening in the guard was located. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had been working on the machine for less than three days, having been put to work on this machine on Thursday, and the accident occurring on Saturday afternoon. Her ordinary position in tending the machine was at the opposite end from the defective guard, and she did not notice or see the opening until the same day when she was hurt. Immediately prior to the accident, plaintiff and her end minder began to run out of material, and the ends were rapidly breaking in the rear of the machine, and it became necessary for plaintiff to go around to the rear to help the end minder put up the ends in order to keep the machine running. That this was the duty of the plaintiff under the circumstances is unanimously testified to by all the girls who work at the factory who were sworn at the trial, being six in number, who state that such was the universal custom among all the girls in the factory, and that they were scolded by the foreman when they neglected to do so. In order to induce the girls to help one another to keep the machine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
127 cases
  • Stoll v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • April 28, 1913
    ...... Legal Responsibility for Tortious Acts, Its History, 3 Select. Essays on Anglo-American Legal History, p. 474 et seq., 509. et seq., 507; Street, Foundations of Legal Liability, vol. 1,. ...407, 40 S.E. 195, 57 L.R.A. 817; s.c., 128. N.C. 534, 39 S.E. 43, 57 L.R.A. 817; Lore v. Manufacturing Co., 160 Mo. 608, 61 S.W. 678;. Schlemmer v. Buffalo, etc., Ry. Co., 205 U.S. ......
  • St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 12, 1903
    ......645, 647; Kleinest v. Kunhardt, 160. Mass. 230, 35 N.E. 458; Hoard v. Blackstone Mfg. Co., 177 Mass. 69, 71, 58 N.E. 180. The danger of injury. [126 F. 501] . from tending the ...Justice Holmes, that fear of loss of his place. induced him to stay. Lamson v. American Axe & Tool. cO., 177 Mass. 144, 145, 58 N.E. 585, 83 Am.St.rep. 267. In the first case the ...South Boston. Gas Light Co., 158 Mass. 135, 138, 139, 32 N.E. 1119, 47. L.R.A. 161; Lore v. American Mfg. Co., 160 Mo. 608,. 624, 61 S.W. 678; White v.Wittemann Lith. Co., 131 N.Y. 631,. ......
  • Strottman v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 27, 1908
    ...Mo. 168, 79 S. W. 445; Wendler v. House Fur. Co., 165 Mo. 541, 65 S. W. 737; Yall v. Gilliham, 187 Mo. 409, 86 S. W. 125; Lore v. Mfg. Co., 160 Mo. 608, 61 S. W. 678. It seems to me that that is a clear misconception of those cases. In my judgment they have no application whatever to the ca......
  • Stein v. Oil & Grease Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 21, 1931
    ...Co., 192 Mo. 1; Cole v. Lead Co., 240 Mo. 397; Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 685; Huss v. Bakery Co., 210 Mo. 44; Lore v. Mfg. Co., 160 Mo. 608; Czernicke v. Ehrlich, 212 Mo. 386; Bair v. Heibel, 103 Mo. App. 621; Huskey v. Boiler Co., 187 Mo. App. 438, 173 S.W. 16. (3) Appellant's conte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT