Casebolt v. International Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: 30152
• Parties: CASEBOLT v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

38 S.W.2d 1044

CASEBOLT v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. et al

No. 30152

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

May 21, 1931

Watts & Gentry and Arnot L. Sheppard, all of St. Louis, for appellants.

Robert E. Hannegan and Robert L. Aronson, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

OPINION

RAGLAND, J.

This case comes to the writer on reassignment. Appellants state the case as follows:

'This is a proceeding by Hubert Casebolt to recover damages or compensation under the Missouri Workmen's compensation Act [Laws 1927, p. 490] for an injury which he received on February 18, 1928, while in the employ of appellant International Life Insurance Company, in the City of St Louis, Missouri.

'The evidence discloses that at the time of his injury he was engaged in cleaning a floor in an apartment house in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, at 4950 Lindell. The particular duty being performed by respondent at the time of his injury was going over the floor surface with steel wool held in his hand. There was in the room where the work was being done an inflammable liquid which was used in the process of cleaning the apartment. From some unknown cause this liquid became ignited and respondent was severely burned, resulting in the loss of his left eye, the vision of his right eye, the loss of hearing of his left ear, loss of the use of both hands, and severe burns and scars about the neck and face.

'Respondent had been in the employ of International Life Insurance Company for a period of five weeks and one day. For the first week he was paid at the rate of 371/2 cents an hour, forty-four hours constituting a week's work. The second, third and fourth weeks he was paid at the rate of 341/2 cents an hour. The fifth week he was paid at the rate of 40 cents an hour, as he was for the one day additional.

'He was doing general cleaning and ordinary common labor. Other men, doing the same kind of work and engaged in the same grade of employment as respondent, were paid 35 cents an hour for that character of work. The record further disclosed that he would ultimately have been paid at the rate of 60 cents an hour, provided he developed into the kind of workman who received that class of pay. However, to receive the maximum rate of pay, respondent would have to have certain peculiar qualifications, notable the ability to stand height without becoming dizzy. This was necessary for the reason that the highly-paid men in this character of work must be able to wash the outside windows in high buildings without becoming dizzy. Respondent's foreman stated that it was impossible for him to determine whether or...