American Car & Foundry Co. v. Schachlewich

• Citation: 229 F. 559
• Decision Date: 18 January 1916
• Docket Number: 4452.
• Parties: AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. SCHACHLEWICH.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

229 F. 559

AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. SCHACHLEWICH.

No. 4452.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 18, 1916

William R. Gentry, of St. Louis, Mo. (M. F. Watts, Edwin W. Lee, and G. A. Orth, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Emerson E. Schnepp, of St. Louis, Mo. (Sigmund S'Renco, of St Louis, Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before ADAMS and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.

TRIEBER District Judge.

The defendant in error brought this action against the plaintiff in error to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while in the employ of the plaintiff in error. He alleges in his petition that he was required by the defendant's foreman to work underneath a car which was being repaired, and that the car was so constructed that a door in the floor opened outward, and that whilst he was engaged in his work said door suddenly opened and fell upon his arm, inflicting injuries upon it. It was further alleged that the door was usually held in place by a bar, but that the bar was not, on the occasion in question, adjusted so as to project over the edge of the door, but the door was held in place only by an accumulation of ice, which permitted the door to fall. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was unfamiliar with the construction of said car and did not know of the condition of said door, but that defendant's foreman in charge of the work knew of it, or could have known of it by the exercise of ordinary care, and could have prevented the falling of the door and injuring of the plaintiff, but that he negligently failed to put said door in a safe condition, failed to apprise plaintiff of the dangerous condition, and failed and neglected to provide a safe place for plaintiff to do the repair work on the said car, all of which acts of negligence directly caused plaintiff's injuries.

The answer was a general denial. The evidence introduced on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that he was in the employ of the defendant, and that while he was working under a car, as alleged in the petition, the door suddenly fell upon his arm, inflicting the injuries complained of. There was no evidence whatever tending to show what caused the door to fall, or that the defendant was guilty of any negligence except such as arises from the fact that the door fell without any fault of the plaintiff. The defendant...