Brown v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1923
• Docket Number: No. 17433.,17433.
• Citation: 251 S.W. 141
• Parties: BROWN v. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

251 S.W. 141

BROWN v. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO.

No. 17433.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 3, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Wade Hampton Brown against the Pittaburgh Plate Glass Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mark D. Eagleton, of St. Louis, and Clyde Williams, of Hillsboro, for appellant.

Miller & Kleinschmidt, of Hillsboro, and Marsalek & Stahihuth, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BIGGS, C.

The only question involved in defendant's appeal in a master and servant negligence case is whether plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to make an issue for the jury as to whether defendant violated its duty in failing to exercise ordinary care to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe appliance with which to perform his work.

Plaintiff was employed at defendant's plant, his duty being to unload coal cars which were placed over a pit, where the coal was allowed to run from the bottom of the cars by opening doors, which were held up by means of a chain wound around a shaft, and which extended from one side of the car to the other. When the chain was loosened, this allowed the doors in "the bottom of the car to open downward, and the coal by force of gravity ran from the car into the pit beneath. There was what is termed a "dog," which was lodged into the teeth of cogwheels at the end of the shaft, thus preventing it from turning and allowing the chain to unwind. When the cars were placed in position over the pit plaintiff in performing his work would lift the dog from the cogwheel, and ordinarily when this was done the weight of the coal would force the doors open and permit the coal to run into the pit. On some occasions, however, the weight of the coal pressing against the chain and shaft would prevent them from turning, and when this would happen it would be plaintiff's duty to start the doors by turning the shaft. In order to turn the shaft on these occasions the defendant, through its foreman, furnished to plaintiff a large iron wrench about 2% feet long, which was flattened out at each end and the end cut so as to form jaws which would fit over the shaft, which shaft was square, having four sides. The wrench referred to was termed an "ordinary wrench" in the evidence. Plaintiff won-id place it over the shaft and give the shaft a slight turn, which would result in the doors flying open rapidly, and, of course, the shaft revolving rapidly, by reason of the weight of the coal pressing against the doors. Plaintiff had been engaged in the work for 2½ months, and during that period, as he was using the wrench for the purposes stated., the whirl of the shaft would cause the wrench to be thrown from the shaft, violently striking the ground, as there would be no opportunity to remove the wrench from the shaft after It suddenly started. Plaintiff testified that this occurred on six occasions during his employment, and that he also noticed it happened when other employees were doing the work.

At the time of the accident plaintiff was directed by his foreman to unload a car of coal which had been placed over the pit. As was customary, he loosened the dog from the cogwheels, which, however, did not cause the door to drop. He then put the wrench on the shaft and lifted up on it, when the doors suddenly opened, and the shaft began to turn rapidly, carrying the wrench with it. The wrench flew from the shaft, striking plaintiff on the head, causing his injuries. The operation may be likened, as was done at the argument, to the action of a Ford automobile when in cranking it one turns the crank for a short distance one way and it suddenly and rapidly starts in an opposite direction. On the occasion that plaintiff was injured the wrench, after striking plaintiff, was thrown from the shaft `and landed in an elevator near by.

A witness for plaintiff, who had been engaged for six years in the business of dumping automatic coal cars similar to the one plaintiff was working on, attempted to testify as to the kind of wrenches customarily used by others in doing the work, but upon objection from defendant failed to do so; it being said at the time by the defendant that what is customarily and generally used is a question for the jury to decide, and not for the witness, and that it was competent, however, for the witness to testify as to what kind of wrenches were used in other places. Thereupon the witness testified that he had been working for the Union Electric Light & Power Company a ad the Laclede Gaslight Company for a period of 6 years and had been engaged in similar work, and that these two companies used what is termed a "ratchet wrench," which character of wrench in place of the jaws of the ordinary wrench had at the end a wheel with a square hole in it...