Clark v. Union Iron & Foundry Co.

Decision Date09 May 1911
Citation234 Mo. 436,137 S.W. 577
PartiesCLARK v. UNION IRON & FOUNDRY CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Action by C. E. Clark against the Union Iron & Foundry Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See, also, 137 S. W. 583.

Wm. McNamee and A. R. Taylor, for appellant. Linn R. Brokaw and Percy Werner, for respondent.

WOODSON, J.

The following opinion, written by me in Division No. 1 of this court, reversing the judgment of the circuit court, is adopted by the court in banc. All concur.

"The plaintiff sued the defendants, Union Iron & Foundry Company and the St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, for the sum of $30,000 damages sustained by him for personal injuries received through the alleged joint negligence of the said defendants. A trial was had in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $20,000 against the defendant railway company, and a judgment in favor of the defendant iron and foundry company, and against the plaintiff. The railway company appealed to this court from the former judgment, and the plaintiff appealed from the latter.

"Because of the condition of the record in this case, it is necessary, in order to properly understand the questions presented for termination, to set out the pleadings on which the case was tried. The petition is as follows: `The plaintiff by leave of court files his amended petition. The plaintiff states: That defendant Union Iron & Foundry Company is, and at the times herein mentioned was, a corporation by virtue of the laws of Missouri. That at said times defendant St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company was, and is now, a corporation by virtue of the law of Missouri, and occupied the premises, and used and operated the poles, wires, and electric current herein mentioned, for the purpose of conveying electricity to various wires as motive power. That electricity is a highly dangerous power when it has contact with a human body and very destructive to human life and limb, as defendants and each of them by their agents herein mentioned well knew at the time herein mentioned. That on the 17th day of January, 1905, defendant St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company was maintaining on its premises at De Hodiamont and Maple avenues on or near the dividing line between the city of St. Louis and county of St. Louis, about 180 feet north of Maple avenue, and between said defendant's power house and the tracks of the Wabash Railroad Company, a pole on which was strung five wires for the conveyance of large quantities of electric fluid as a motive power. That said feed wires were heavily charged with electricity. That said pole on which said feed wires were strung was so situated that persons were liable to be near them and liable to be in contact with them and to have objects with which they would work in contact with said feed wires. That on said day the plaintiff was in the service of the defendant Union Iron & Foundry Company as a laborer. That on said day the Union Iron & Foundry Company was employed by the defendant St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company in the erection of a coal lift or chute on said premises, and was on said premises of said St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company engaged in said work at the invitation of said St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company. That whilst the plaintiff was in the due discharge of his said employment he was ordered by the foreman of his employer the Union Iron & Foundry Company to go up said pole on which said feed wires were strung for the purpose of raising and adjusting a guy rope attached to a gin pole so as to have said guy rope above said feed wires. That said foreman had authority from his said employer to command and control the plaintiff as to the work he was to do and the manner of doing the same, and to supply the means and appliances for doing said work. That whilst the plaintiff was on said pole engaged in said work the guy rope block came in contact with a feed wire, and became charged with electricity from said feed wire, whereby said electricity so coming from said feed wire through said appliance shocked and burnt and permanently injured the plaintiff upon his hands, legs, and body, both of his arms and hands, and the flesh, tendons leaders, and muscles thereof were so burnt and injured as to permanently destroy the use thereof. His left leg and the muscles, flesh, and tendons thereof were so burnt and injured as to permanently destroy the use thereof. His right leg and the muscles, flesh, and tendons thereof were so burnt and injured as to permanently destroy the use thereof, and plaintiff was otherwise burnt and injured upon his body, and his nervous system was shocked and wrecked, and he was injured internally. And plaintiff avers that said feed wires were defectively insulated; that the insulation thereof was old, burnt, and rotten, and was wholly ineffectual to prevent the escape of electricity from said feed wires, and in such condition as to be a dangerous and destructive trap to persons working at and about them; that, owing to said defective condition of said wires and their insulation, said electricity escaped therefrom, and injured the plaintiff as aforesaid; that defendant St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company was negligent in maintaining said feed wires in such dangerous condition where plaintiff was invited to be at and work about his said work by said defendant, which said negligence of said defendant directly contributed to cause plaintiff's said injuries. And plaintiff further avers that defendant Union Iron & Foundry Company, by its foreman so in control of the plaintiff, was negligent in ordering the plaintiff to do said work at and about said dangerous and defective wires, when by the exercise of ordinary care he would have known of said danger and of said defective and dangerous condition of said wires, and could have averted said injury to the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care, yet neglected to do so, and thereby directly contributed to cause said injuries to the plaintiff;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 24, 1928
    ...the master — the foreman. Brown v. Brick Co., 288 S.W. 941; McCarver v. Lead Co., 268 S.W. 687; Nash v. Lead Co., 238 S.W. 384; Clark v. Foundry Co., 234 Mo. 450; Sullivan v. Railway, 107 Mo. 78; Bane v. Irwin, 172 Mo. 316; Herdler v. Range Co., 136 Mo. 17; Garard v. Coal Co., 207 Mo. 242; ......
  • Johnson v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 5, 1918
    ......Jas. F. Green, of St. Louis, and Harvey C. Clark, of Jefferson City, for appellant Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. Aull & Aull, of ..., and it would be the duty of the latter, among other things, to weld iron, and in order to do that it would be necessary for him to heat the ends of ......
  • Wright v. K.C. Structural Steel Co., 19867.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 1, 1941
    ...Co., 145 N.Y. 201, 39 N.E. 716; Glushing v. Sharp, 96 N.Y. 676; Briggs v. Boston, etc. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 74 N.E. 667; Clark v. Union Iron & Foundry Co. (Mo.), 137 S.W. 577; Dobromilsky v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mo. App.), 293 S.W. 451. (b) Defendant placed the walkway in the hopper for ......
  • Pritchard v. Thompson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 30, 1941
    ...Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fiedler, 52 Fed. (2d) 400; Crane v. Liberty Foundry Co., 322 Mo. 592, 17 S.W. (2d) 945; Clark v. Union Iron & Foundry Co., 234 Mo. 436, 137 S.W. 577; Macklin v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W. (2d) 14; McCarver v. St. Joseph Lead Co., 216 Mo. App. 370, 268 S.W. 687; Ru......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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