Carroll v. Union Seed & Fertilizer Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 15137.,15137. |
| Citation | 204 S.W. 1132 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CARROLL v. UNION SEED & FERTILIZER CO. |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Karl Kimmel, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Richard Carroll against the Union Seed & Fertilizer Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Percy Werner, of St. Louis, for appellant. J. R. Van Slyke, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant corporation as its servant, alleged to have been occasioned by defendant's negligence. The trial below, before the court and a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the case is here on defendant's appeal.
The petition alleges that on November 3, 1914, plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant in a certain plant operated by it in the city of St. Louis, wherein defendant operated various machines, including a "linter machine"; that on said day the plaintiff was directed by defendant to fix certain parts of said linter machine, and attempted to do so under the order and direction of defendant; that plaintiff was inexperienced in making repairs of such character, which was known to defendant, or would have been known to it by the exercise of ordinary care; and that in making such repairs defendant knew, or by lthe exercise of ordinary care would have known, that plaintiff would be required to work "under and beneath the lower part of the breast of said machine." And it is alleged that while plaintiff was doing such work, in accordance with and under the directions of defendant, the "breast of said machine gave way and struck plaintiff," causing his left arm and hand to come in contact with certain revolving saws or knives of the machine, whereby he was seriously injured.
It is alleged, in substance, that plaintiff's injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant, in that the machine on which plaintiff was working was old and worn, and the heavy breast thereof was fastened to the frame of the machine by means of certain hinges and screws, and that such screws had been permitted to become loose in the wooden framework of the main portion of the machine, through the operation and vibration of the machine by reason whereof the hinges supporting the breast had become loose and insecure, which caused the breast to fall from its attachment at one end of the machine, while plaintiff was working at the machine and under said breast, as aforesaid, whereby plaintiff's arm and hand were struck and thrown into and against the revolving saws or knives within the machine, resulting in plaintiff's injury which necessitated the amputation of his hand. Further allegations are made as to plaintiff's injuries, but they need not be here set out. The answer is a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence.
Plaintiff's evidence shows that he worked for defendant corporation in all during portions of four years, or four "seasons." He says:
He further testified that at the time of his injuries his position was that of floorman, and that one Christopher was foreman. He says:
"As floorman on this particular floor I had to do with those sixteen linters whatever I was told to do by Mr. Christopher."
And he testified that he had done no repair work on the machinery up to the time of his injury. According to plaintiff's testimony, on the day of his injury he was told by Christopher, the foreman, to "fix the friction" on No. 6 linter machine. It appears that the foreman came to plaintiff while the latter was "changing the saws" on another linter machine, took him to this "No. 6 linter," raised the breast thereof, and told him to do the repair work mentioned. It appears that this linter, as it is called, was a large heavy machine, about eight feet in length, containing various mechanical parts, and was operated by means of a belt, which connected a pulley upon the machine with a drive shaft situated at the rear thereof. It was produced in court during the progress of the trial below, and was before the jury while much of the testimony concerning it was given. At the time of plaintiff's injury it stood upon a platform about four feet in height and faced west. It is said that the top of the machine was about four feet above the platform and the machinery about "breast high." Within the main body of the machine were a great many "saws" which operated very rabidly, and at the front thereof was this so-called breast, or apron, which contained machinery and was quite heavy, weighing, it is said, 365 pounds. Its framework was of wood, as was the frame of the main portion of the machine, and it was attached to the latter at each end by certain "hinges" fastened thereto and to the frame of the machine by screws. The breast could be removed entirely, but these hinges were so constructed as to permit it to be raised a short distance, and there was a device by which it could be held in position by turning a handle. When the breast was thus raised the machinery within the breast itself ceased to operate, but this raising of the breast did not stop the operation of the saws contained in the main portion of the machine, extending near the front thereof, and which were then exposed or partly exposed. To stop such saws it was necessary to throw off the belt at the rear of the machine. The machinery within the breast was operated by means of friction wheels, one wheel or "friction" at each end of the machine, which were adjusted by lag screws. As to this plaintiff said:
As to the directions given him by the foreman, explaining also certain parts of the machine, plaintiff testified:
One Cary, an employé of defendant, was with plaintiff when the latter was injured. According to his testimony he was in charge of the 16 linter machines on this floor. He testified that on the day prior to plaintiff's injury he called the foreman's attention to this No. 6 linter, particularly to the lag screw, telling him that this lag screw was loose and would not hold; that the foreman told him to fix it. The witness said:
He testified that the foreman told him to make the repair, and that he took out the lag screw and "put in a splinter of wood to make it hold," the foreman having told him to do this; that on the next day, the day upon which plaintiff was injured, he saw the foreman talking to plaintiff and afterwards saw plaintiff go to No. 6 linter; and that he afterwards went to that machine in order to assist plaintiff.
According to the testimony of both plaintiff and Cary plaintiff "fixed the friction," and Cary then lowered the breast, causing the machinery therein to operate. It appears that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial