Boeckmann v. Valier & Spies Milling Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 14892.,14892.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: BOECKMANN v. VALIER & SPIES MILLING CO.

199 S.W. 457

BOECKMANN v. VALIER & SPIES MILLING CO.

No. 14892.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 4, 1917.

Rehearing Denied December 21, 1917.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by Martin Boeckmann against the Valier & Spies Milling Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Kelley & Stark, of St. Louis, for appellant. Wilfley, McIntyre & Nardin, of St. Louis, and Earl F. Nelson, of Milan, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

This is a suit for damages for injuries to plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The case was tried by a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,000, and from the judgment rendered thereon the defendant has appealed to this court.

Plaintiff's petition alleges specific acts of negligence. The particular act of negligence alleged in the petition upon which the case was submitted to the jury was that defendant directed the plaintiff to use an elevator belonging to defendant, which was carelessly and negligently constructed and maintained, in that the cable which raised, lowered, and supported the elevator cage was attached to the cage by a pin or bar passing through two eyes of a clevis or stirrup which was attached to an iron beam supporting the elevator cage, which pin or bar was held in place only by small cotter pins or keys, which pins were so weak as to be unsafe and defective and to break and become sheared off releasing the pin or bar from its position and loosening the cable from the cage of the elevator, letting the cage fall, resulting in plaintiff's injuries; that the defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, of the defective, dangerous, and unsafe condition of the elevator. The answer was a general denial.

The evidence discloses that the plaintiff was in defendant's employ as a common laborer and had occasionally operated the freight elevator in question at times during the four or five weeks preceding the date of the accident, and that, at the time of his injuries due to the fall of the elevator, plaintiff was operating it under the direction of the defendant's superintendent in charge. The elevator cage weighed 800 to 1,000 pounds and had a carrying capacity of 4,000 pounds. A passenger in stepping out of the elevator faced west. On the north and south sides of the elevator and attached to the walls of the building were two steel strips called "guides," and the elevator cage has what is termed "shoes" which fit into these guides and slide in them as the cage goes up or down. These "shoes" have a play of from one-eighth to three-sixteenths of an inch in the guides. The cable which raises, lowers, and supports the elevator cage was attached to it by being looped around a pin or bar some 5½ to 6 inches long and one inch in diameter, which pin or bar extended through and beyond holes bored through the two jaws of the stirrup, which stirrup went around the steel beams which extended across the top of the cage and from which the elevator cage was suspended. The holes or eyes in the jaws of the stirrup were drilled one inch in diameter, and there was testimony that after the holes had been drilled through both jaws of the stirrup a file was "run around the edges of the holes." The horizontal pin or bar fits tightly in these holes. The ends of this pin or bar extended beyond the jaws of the stirrup on either side of it, and on this part of the pin or bar, so extending beyond the jaws of the stirrup, a washer was placed immediately next to the outer side of each jaw of the stirrup, and then a cotter key or cotter pin was placed through a hole drilled through the bar just outside of each of the said washers.

There was testimony that the horizontal bar or pin and the cotter keys were made of cold rolled steel. As to the size of the cotter keys, an employé of the elevator company which manufactured and installed the elevator in question testified that they were one-fourth of an inch in thickness, whilst another witness who had been in the employ of the said elevator company testified that the thickness was three-sixteenths of an inch, and the defendant's superintendent testified that they were five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness.

We insert here a photograph of a stirrup, jaws, horizontal pin, washers, and cotter keys which appears in the record as one of the exhibits in the case, for a clearer understanding of the mechanism just described:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

On the day plaintiff was injured, he had taken the elevator to the fourth floor of the building, stopped it, and was in the act of stepping out when the elevator cage fell some eight or ten feet, knocking plaintiff to the floor of the elevator and injuring him. Immediately after the accident, defendant's superintendent examined the stirrup, horizontal bar or pin, cotter keys, and washers, and found that one of the cotter keys (the west one) was sheared off at both ends; that a part of the cotter key was in the horizontal pin through which the cotter key passed; that the horizontal pin or bar had come out of the west eye or hole in the stirrup, which threw the weight of the elevator cage to one side and sprung or bent the west side of the stirrup, and thus the horizontal bar, having no support on the west side, bent and the cable slipped from it, allowing the cage to fall. This witness testified that the ends of the cotter key remaining in the horizontal bar were bright and there was no rust on the ends. This was corroborated by two other witnesses for the defendant, each of which inferred from that fact that it was a fresh break.

Defendant's superintendent also testified that he noticed no defect in the material of the cotter pin which sheared off. These pieces were not found. No one of the witnesses therefore saw the head or the legs of the cotter pin which had been sheared off.

One Campfield, a witness for plaintiff, testified that he was a stationary engineer; that he had had 16 years' experience with elevators, both electric and hydraulic; that at the time he testified, and for 2 years previous, he was an inspector of elevators for a surety company and was familiar with and had inspected the type of elevator, made by the same manufacturer, as that in which it is alleged plaintiff had met with his injuries. This witness further testified, upon being shown the stirrup which had been introduced in evidence as being a similar model to the stirrup that had been attached to the elevator in which the accident is alleged to have happened, that he had never seen that sort of a stirrup on any other elevator excepting the elevators manufactured by this particular...