Aldridge's Adm'r v. Midland Blast Furnace Co.

Citation78 Mo. 559
PartiesALDRIDGE'S ADM'R v. THE MIDLAND BLAST FURNACE COMPANY, Appellant.
Decision Date31 October 1883
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court.--HON. H. V. B. HILL, Judge.

REVERSED.

A. & J. F. Lee, Jr., for appellant.

Smith & Krauthoff and L. Judson for respondent.

HENRY, J.

This is an action brought in the circuit court of Dent county by E. N. Aldridge against the Midland Blast Furnace Company, for personal injuries received by him June 23rd, 1877, while working in an iron-ore bank of defendant, in Dent county. The cause was removed by change of venue to Phelps county, and the trial begun on plaintiff's amended petition. The amended petition stated that while plaintiff was at work by defendant's direction in the Millsap bank at the foot of an embankment or wall of earth, four feet back from the face of which was a crevice partially separating the embankment from the body of the surrounding earth, the embankment fell upon and injured him by reason of defendant's failure to secure it by the use of shores or props; that plaintiff was ignorant of the crevice and defendant was not. The answer was a general denial, and a special defense of compromise and satisfaction of plaintiff's demand by the payment of $150 to him by defendant, which he accepted in full satisfaction of all demands on account of the injuries received by him. On a trial plaintiff had judgment for $500, from which defendant has appealed.

It was admitted that defendant was the owner of the Millsap bank, and that F. C. Griffin was the agent and vice-principal of defendant; that the business of mining is dangerous and hazardous. The evidence for plaintiff tended to prove that he was employed to work at said bank about three days before the accident, but had not worked upon the embankment before that day, and only an hour before it caved in on him; that he was employed as a miner by Griffin, and directed by him to assist in shoveling dirt near the foot of the embankment, undermining it, in order to cause it to fall into the excavation, and plaintiff knew the object in undermining it. At the time Griffin ordered plaintiff to work, there was a blind seam of lay four feet back from said face, in which there was a crevice or crack four inches wide and running parallel with said face for its whole length to a point separating said bank from the adjacent earth, which increased the danger of operating said mine; it was known to Griffin and unknown to plaintiff. Griffin was not in the cut nor on the bank from the time he ordered plaintiff to begin work until after plaintiff was injured.

Hicks, a fellow-servant of plaintiff, testified that he was on the top of said bank that evening before the accident, at three o'clock, and saw a crack four feet from the face, as the face was when he saw it, and he went down and told the crowd at work at the foot of it; he spoke particularly to Henry Graff, another fellow-servant of plantiff, and Graff heard him, but plaintiff did not; he told them it was dangerous to work there. He testified that the bank was dangerous without the crevice, and any one could see that it was dangerous; that he was picking at the foot of the bank which fell, on the evening before the accident, and also for a short while on the morning of the accident; but being aware of the danger that the bank would fall, he gave his pick to Graff; then Graff continued to undermine the bank with his pick, the plaintiff shoveling the dirt after Graff, and about two feet from him.

William J. Hill, another witness for plaintiff, a miner of twenty years' experience, testified that he was at work at the bank when the accident occurred, about 100 yards from plaintiff; that he was at work about twenty minutes before the accident; that it was unsafe to work under a bank of the height and materials that bank was composed of; and it was so considered among miners; any experienced miner could see, by looking at the bank, that it was dangerous; some miners take risks which others will not take.

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that he was able-bodied before he was hurt; that Graff continued to undermine the bank, and upon digging out a piece of stone or ore, the bank slid down upon plaintiff and upon Graff; that Griffin was in the cut immediately after the accident, and helped to uncover plaintiff, and sent to town for a buggy and a doctor. The town was from one-quarter to half a mile from the Millsap bank. The doctor came and found the plaintiff lying on the ground. Plaintiff was then put in a buggy and carried to his house; that when plaintiff was being carried to his house he was borne opposite the store of one Samuel Morrison, who being sworn on the part of plaintiff, testified that he was a stove and tin merchant, and lived in the town of Salem; that after Aldridge was carried past his store, where Morrison then was, Morrison went immediately up to the Millsap bank, and arrived there about one hour after the accident; that he found Griffin at the bank, but not in the cut, about thirty feet from where the accident took place; Griffin did not appear excited, but seemed to be troubled.

Plaintiff's counsel then asked the witness, Morrison, the following question:

Ques. State if you had any conversation with Griffin at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • Lee v. St. Louis, M. & S. E. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Mayo 1905
    ...Co., 136 Mo. 17, 37 S. W. 115; Sullivan v. Ry., 107 Mo. 78, 17 S. W. 748, 28 Am. St. Rep. 388; Covey v. Ry., 86 Mo. 641; Aldridge v. Midland Blast Furn. Co., 78 Mo. 564; Porter v. Ry., 71 Mo. 78, 36 Am. Rep. 454; Id., 60 Mo. 162; Keegan v. Kavanaugh, 62 Mo. 232; Browning v. Kasten (Mo. App.......
  • Zeigenmeyer v. Goetz Lime & Cement Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 19 Junio 1905
    ...28 S.W. 620, 30 S.W. 102; Epperson v. Postal Tel. Co., 155 Mo. 346, 50 S.W. 795, 55 S.W. 1050; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475, 22 S.W. 1113; Aldridge, Admr., v. Midland Blast Co., 78 Mo. 559; Sullivan v. Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396.] According to the testimony of the respondent, he knew full well......
  • Lee v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Mayo 1905
    ... ... Railway, 86 Mo. 641; Aldridge v ... Midland Blast Furn. Co., 78 Mo. 559; Porter v ... Railway, 71 ... ...
  • Cunningham v. The Doe Run Lead Company, a Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 15 Junio 1926
    ... ... firing of each blast, but that this is a duty resting upon ... the miners ... Aldridge v ... Furnace Co., 78 Mo. 559; Hammon v. Coal & Coke ... Co., 156 Mo ... ...
  • 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