Cadwell v. Wilson Stove & Mfg. Co.

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Woodson
• Citation: Cadwell v. Wilson Stove & Mfg. Co., 238 S.W. 415 (Mo. 1921)
• Decision Date: 19 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22424.,22424.
• Parties: CADWELL v. WILSON STOVE & MFG. CO.

238 S.W. 415

CADWELL v. WILSON STOVE & MFG. CO.

No. 22424.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 19, 1921.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled March 14, 1922.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court; G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.

Action by Henry Cadwell against the Wilson Stove & Manufacturing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

This suit was instituted in the circuit court of St. Louis county, by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover damages in the sum of $25,000 for personal injuries sustained by him while in the employment of the defendant, through the alleged negligence of the latter. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff duly sued out a writ of error to this court.

There is no question raised as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, consequently we put them aside without further comment. The facts of the case are practically undisputed, as shown by the statements of the case by counsel for the respective parties, but we adopt that of counsel for defendant in error for the reasons stated in their statement, which we find to be true from an examination of the record. That statement is as follows:

"The statement, which has been filed by plaintiff in error, fairly outlines the pleadings and the issues raised thereby, and, with one or two exceptions, to which we shall refer, it contains a fairly accurate summary of the testimony adduced by plaintiff in error.

"At the time of his injury, plaintiff in error was a man thoroughly experienced in the kind of work which he was attempting to perform. He had worked in and around stove manufacturing plants, handling, and assisting in handling, sheet iron for 25 years. He describes himself as one than whom there is no better workman in this line of work. He had worked for defendant in error on another occasion prior to the one on which he was injured. He was last employed on a Monday, and had worked all of Monday and until 5 o'clock on the afternoon of Tuesday before he was injured.

"His work was performed in what is known as the machine shop, a large room consisting of 3 or more departments. This room is described by one of the witnesses, testifying on behalf of plaintiff in error, as from 60 to 75 feet wide and 175 feet to 200 feet long. The shears at which plaintiff in error was working at the time of his injury was in the west end of this room. At a point between 75 and 100 feet east of these shears an aisle led to what is known as the iron room, that is to say, a main aisle or passageway extended east from the shears, and leading off this main passageway was another aisle which led to the iron room. The aisle leading from the main passageway to the iron room was about 15 feet long.

"It was the duty of plaintiff in error to obtain a supply of sheet iron from the iron room, and there load it upon a truck, which will be described hereafter, and to then shove the truck loaded with iron from the iron room along the aisle already mentioned to the main passageway, and thence along the main passageway to the shears, at which place it was his further duty to cut or trim the iron. On Monday he had thus obtained, hauled, and trimmed 1 or 2 truck loads of iron, and on Tuesday he had handled 1 or 2 more truck loads. A little over an hour before he was injured plaintiff in error went to the iron room, and there loaded 100 sheets of iron on the truck. He then shoved the truck from the iron room to the shears without any mishap of any kind. He placed the truck load of iron alongside the shears in such a position that he could stand between the bench, forming a part of the shears, and the truck on which the iron was loaded. The testimony tended to establish that the usual space between the bench and the truck was 2 feet. In that space plaintiff in error stood, so that, as he faced the bench of the shears, he faced directly west, while directly east of him, or at his back, was the truck, loaded with iron. It was his duty to take the iron, a sheet at a time, from the truck, place it in a certain position on the bench, and then operate the shears, thus cutting or trimming the iron. It was his duty to replace it on the truck, and, when the truck was again loaded, to shove the truck and load to another machine, where another operation was performed on the iron. On the occasion of this accident plaintiff in error had brought the truck loaded with iron to the shears, and, for at least an hour before the accident, the truck had been standing absolutely still, and during that time plaintiff in error had trimmed all but 3 or 4 sheets of the 100 sheets originally in the load. While facing the shears, with his back towards the truck, and while trimming a sheet of the iron, without any warning and without any movement of the truck, the truck and contents fell over and injured him.

"The plant of defendant in error was located at Valley Park, in St. Louis county, Mo. In August, 1915, that part of the town in which the plant was located was very seriously damaged by a flood, which covered the floor of this machine shop with water, which reached the depth of some 3 feet. The water remained over the floor for 15 or 16 hours, when it receded, and after that various means—all fully described in the testimony—were pursued by defendant in error to clean up the floor. In February, 1916, there was another flood in this part of the town, but the undisputed testimony is that the water did not get over this floor. Whatever damage was done to the floor was done as the result of the flood in August, 1915.

"Plaintiff in error was injured in March, 1916, some 7 months after the flood which did the damage. There is a direct conflict in the evidence as to the condition of the floor of the machine shop at the time of this accident. The testimony offered on behalf of plaintiff in error, over objection by defendant in error, tended to establish that the floor was buckled at a point between the door leading from the iron room and the main passageway already referred to. Plaintiff in error obtained the iron which he was cutting at the shears in this iron room, and, if the floor was in defective condition just outside the iron room, it would be necessary for him to shove each truck load of iron over such alleged defective place. Inasmuch as the accident did not occur at that point, but, on the contrary, occurred some 75 or 100 feet away from there, it was and is the contention of defendant in error that any testimony in reference to the condition of the floor just outside of the iron room was immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this case. However its objection to the testimony in reference to the condition of the floor at this point was overruled, so that plaintiff in error had the benefit of proving to the jury the condition of the floor at this and other points entirely away from, and wholly disconnected with, the accident which resulted in his injury.

"There was also evidence tending to establish that the floor in the vicinity of the shears was warped or buckled, and that it sloped or slanted towards the shears. The evidence introduced by plaintiff in error, however, is wholly silent upon the...