Bryan v. United States Incandescent Lamp Company

Decision Date16 July 1913
Citation159 S.W. 754,176 Mo.App. 716
PartiesWALTER E. BRYAN, Respondent, v. UNITED STATES INCANDESCENT LAMP COMPANY, Appellant
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Charles Claflin Allen, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

A. & J F. Lee for appellant.

(1) Plaintiff's instruction No. 1 is erroneous, because: (a) It instructs the jury that the conditions which that instruction tells the jury required a verdict did exist "as facts" and thus took all the material issues from the jury. James v. Railroad, 107 Mo. 484. (b) It was confused and misleading and did not submit to the jury the question of whether there was any gasoline vapor in the room, or an unprotected gas flame, or whether, if either was there, its presence constituted negligence on the part of the defendant. It purported to cover the whole case and direct a finding. It should, therefore, embrace affirmatively or negatively all legal defenses arising under the pleadings and proof. Enloe v. Foundry Co., 240 Mo. 449. In such a case nondirection is misdirection. Sinnamon v Moore, 161 Mo.App. 177; Fink v. Phelps, 30 Mo.App. 431; Bank v. Metcalf, 29 Mo.App. 395; Beauchamp v. Higgins, 20 Mo.App. 516. (c) It assumed that the placing of the lamp and the light in the box "was such negligent, dangerous and unsafe contrivance and means for providing gasoline vapor"--a material issue in the case. James v. Railroad, supra.

Kinealy & Kinealy for respondent.

(1) The first instruction given on behalf of respondent is not erroneous. (a) It does not assume facts but tells the jury same must be found "from the evidence," and it is unnecessary to repeat that direction. Cody v Gremmler, 121 Mo.App. 359; Kinlen v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 145. (b) In addition to being unsound appellant's grammatical criticism of the instruction is entirely too technical to be heeded by the courts. Mayor v. Burner, 114 Mo. 426; Haniford v. City of Kansas, 103 Mo. 172; Berkson v. Railroad, 144 Mo. 211. Appellant could not complain if the instruction did assume an uncontroverted fact. Sotebier v. Transit Co., 203 Mo. 702. Or if it required proof by plaintiff of an unnecessary fact. Oehmen v. Partman, 153 Mo.App. 240; Rose v. Railroad, 146 Mo.App. 215; Culver v. Insurance Co., 141 Mo.App. 205. (c) Even were the instruction subject to any substantial objection, same would be entirely remedied by instructions 5 and 8 given at request of appellant, since all the instructions must be read together. Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547; Norton v. Kramer, 180 Mo. 536; Gibler v. Assn., 203 Mo. 208; State v. Weisman, 238 Mo. 547.

NORTONI, J. Reynolds, P. J., and Allen, J., concur.

OPINION

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit for damages accrued to plaintiff on account of personal injuries received through the alleged negligence of defendant. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.

Respondent's counsel have prepared, and we copy from their brief, a full, clear and concise statement of the facts touching the controversy. The statement so referred to is as follows:

"In this case the respondent sues for personal injuries sustained by him by being burned on November 25, 1910, in defendant's factory on Jefferson avenue near Walnut street in St. Louis, in which appellant manufactured incandescent electric light bulbs. Plaintiff went to work regularly for the defendant about the middle of August, 1910, as an engineer, and amongst other duties had charge of the employees in the filament treating room, but was likely at any time to be called to other parts of the factory. In this treating room, carbon filaments were subjected to an electric current in a vapor of gasoline gas, whereby a portion of the gasoline was decomposed and deposited upon the filament. In the defendant's Jefferson avenue factory, which fronted on the west side of Jefferson avenue, it had, at the time plaintiff was hurt, two kinds of filament treating machines, known as the old or hand machines and the new or automatic machines. In the old machines half a dozen of the filaments were placed in metallic clips on a table and then over them was put a glass bell-shaped jar. The air was then drawn out of the jar and gasoline vapor allowed to take its place. When this had been done a current of electricity was run through the filaments for some ten or twelve seconds, and then air again readmitted into the jar which was then raised, and the treated filaments replaced by untreated ones, and the operation was repeated. For use in these machines the gasoline supplied was kept in a bottle, holding about a gallon, under the table. This bottle was closed by a rubber stopper through which a small glass tube passed, and thence a tube composed of alternate sections of glass and rubber tubing led up through the table to the space under the bell-shaped jar. The gasoline supplied could be shut off by means of a clamp fastened over one of the rubber sections of the supply tube. In order to increase the flow of gas from the gasoline in the bottle, the bottle was enclosed in a box with an electric light bulb placed alongside of the bottle. This bulb screwed into a socket in the bottom of the box and could be lighted by simply screwing it down and unlighted by unscrewing it. The box was lined with asbestos and had a cover which fitted closely around the neck of the bottle, and which, working on a pivot, could be swung back so as to leave the box uncovered. When the cover was in place it would be impossible to see whether or not the electric bulb in the box was burning, unless one stood almost immediately over the box. This was because the cover fitted closely. Every time the bell-shaped jar on the old machines was raised up a certain amount of gasoline gas would be discharged into the atmosphere, and often the pressure would become so great in the bottle that the stopper would blow out or the connections in the tube from the bottle would break, and of course in either of those events gasoline vapor would be discharged into the atmosphere. The old machines were two in number, and were placed along the east end, or Jefferson avenue front, of the filament treating room. The new or automatic machines were four in number placed at a long table running along the south side of the room. These new machines were brass tubes in which the top was simply pulled off, and the filaments inserted in them from the top. The gasoline for use on the new machines was supplied from a gasometer placed on the outside of the building on its south side. In order to stimulate the flow of gas from this gasometer the pipes leading therefrom to the automatic machines were run through a larger pipe, and between the two pipes steam was caused to circulate. This steam was produced by a steam boiler located in the southwest corner of the filamment treating room and the steam was generated in this boiler by a large open flame gas burner placed under the boiler and a few inches from the floor. This treating room was something in the neighborhood of 20x14 feet in size. When the filaments had been treated or 'flashed' as it was technically called, they were afterwards 'spot tested.' This was done on the old machines by simply replacing the treated filaments in the clamp under the bell jar and then withdrawing the air, thereby creating a vacuum, and then running an electric current through the filaments. If it had been well treated the filament would present a uniform appearance of incandescence, but if it was a defective one, spots would be seen upon it. For spot testing, therefore, no gasoline was used. The completion of the installation of the automatic machines in this treating room was about the middle of October, 1910. George W. Budde installed the electric wiring for these automatic machines and while around there acted subordinately to plaintiff Bryan in the treating room. The treating machines were operated by a number of girls. Mr. Ferguson, defendant's superintendent, was warned by Mr. Wallace, the chemist, of the danger of installing the open gas flame under the boiler in this room because of the gasoline vapor. The gasoline vapor, especially in the fall and winter, when it was impossible to properly ventilate the room, became very noticeable, usually in the afternoon, causing the girls to get headaches, and on many occasions having to be excused from work on that account.

"On November 25, 1910, plaintiff Bryan had had some trouble in getting proper results from the automatic machines on a certain kind of filament and during the forenoon of that day he and Miss Brown were working on those filaments on one of the old machines. During the course of the afternoon, while he and Miss Brown were still working on the machine treating filaments, plaintiff Bryan was called by his duties to another department of the factory, and when he went out he told Miss Lillian Taylor, the forewoman in the room, to have Miss Brown, when she had finished the batch she was on, to go to spot testing. At this time Mr. Budde was not in the room. When plaintiff Bryan got back, in about an hour or an hour and a half, Mr. Budde was there working on a valve for one of the automatic machines. While Budde was so engaged and plaintiff Bryan was doing some work at the east end of the table upon which the automatic machines were there was a sudden pop under the table of the old or hand machine, at which Grace Brown was sitting. Budde got up and went over to the place and found that there had been a parting at one place between one of the rubber and one of the glass sections of the tube leading from the bottle of gasoline in the box to the bell jar of the machine, and Budde fixed this by simply slipping the end of the rubber section over that of the glass section of the tube and then turned...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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