Beckman v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n

• Decision Date: 02 March 1903
• Parties: BECKMAN v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASS'N.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

72 S.W. 710

98 Mo. App. 555

BECKMAN v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASS'N.

Court of Appeals at Kansas City, Missouri.

March 2, 1903.

INJURY TO EMPLOYÉ — APPLIANCES — NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER — ASSUMPTION OF RISK.

1. Any defect in a skid for rolling barrels into a door, because of its not being firmly attached to the door sill or ground so as to render it immovable, being only in regard to the employé's safety and apparent to him, and one which he can readily remedy, he assumed the risk thereof.

2. A skid for rolling barrels into a door being secured in the usual manner, the master is not liable to an employé injured thereby, though it might have been safer if firmly attached so as to be immovable.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Action by Charles H. Beckman, a minor, by Frederick Beckman, next friend, against the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The plaintiff in this case, Charles H. Beckman, is a young man 19 years of age, and for more than 5 years prior to the injuries complained of had worked for the defendant at its place of business at the northeast corner of Twentieth and Walnut streets, in Kansas City, Mo. The defendant during said time carried on the business of bottling and distributing its beer in said city, and maintained, among others, a bottling department. This department was located in one building, and to the east of it, about 25 feet across a driveway, was the cooler, another building used in the company's business. The floor of the bottling department was 10 or 11 inches above the level of the driveway. Beginning about 4 years before the injury, the plaintiff had been called upon, from time to time, with other men in the bottling department, to go across the driveway to the cooler and bring over small hogsheads of beer, and at the time of the accident had had long and continuous experience in this work. These hogsheads were about 3 feet in height, and about 2 feet in diameter at the ends, bulging in the center to about 30 inches. The door in the cooler was opposite the doorway in the bottling department. The cooler door was 3 feet above the ground, and leading from it was a skid, of about 10 feet in length, down which the barrels of beer were rolled, thence over and across the driveway, and up a small, short skid about 4 feet long, resting on a stone sill in the doorway into the bottling department, which, as stated, was about 10 or 11 inches above the ground. This small skid was a simple appliance, and was made of 2×6 oak lumber, fastened together with two, or, as some of the witnesses say, three pieces or cleats underneath, the lower piece being 2×6, and the upper piece 2×3. The lower end of the skid rested in a small excavation in the ground, made there for the purpose of holding the lower end firm. At the time of plaintiff's injury the skid had been in use about two months, before which time two unfastened boards had been utilized for the purpose. These latter having proved unsatisfactory, they were replaced by the one in controversy here. The method pursued was to allow the barrels to roll down the long skid from the cooling room by their own momentum, each man stepping in behind his own barrel as it reached the ground, and continuing across the driveway behind the barrel, and guiding it up the short skid in through the door of the bottling room. At the time in question, while plaintiff was guiding a barrel up the short skid, from some cause or other, when it got near the top of the skid, it rolled back, and plaintiff, in endeavoring to get out of the way, caught his foot under some part of the skid, which caused him to fall; and, while he was down, the barrel passed over him and injured his leg. It is not very clear just what caused the barrel to fall backward. It must have occurred, however, in one of two ways: Either because the plaintiff was not guiding it up the center of the skid, which would have caused the skid to tilt and throw the barrel off; or that the skid had been misplaced in some way, which might have also caused both skid and barrel to...