Collins v. Rankin Farms

• Decision Date: 06 December 1915
• Docket Number: No. 11233.,11233.
• Citation: 180 S.W. 1053
• Parties: COLLINS v. RANKIN FARMS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

180 S.W. 1053

COLLINS v. RANKIN FARMS.

No. 11233.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 6, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Atchison County; William C. Ellison, Judge.

Action by Henry Collins against the Rankin Farms. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Hunt, Bailey & Hunt, of Rockport, and W. R. Littell, of Tarkio, for appellant. L. J. Miles and Lee Mullins, both of Rockport, for respondent.

ELLISON, P.

Plaintiff's action was brought to recover damages from defendant for personal injury received while engaged In the latter's service as a farm hand. He had judgment in the circuit court for $1,000.

Defendant operated a large farm and, among other things, fed cattle. This made necessary the employment of farm laborers under the immediate direction and control of a superintendent. Plaintiff was engaged, with a team of mules and wagon, in hauling feed to the cattle. One of the mules was young and partially unbroken to work, so that it was necessary to work him with an older mule, which was well broken and gentle. This was done by tying him to the old and gentle mule, the latter setting himself back against the "doubletrees" when the young one would attempt to jump or run. Plaintiff had been working him in that way for several days, when defendant's superintendent directed him to substitute another mule for the gentle one he was then using, telling him that the one he was substituting was as safe and gentle as the other, and would be equally as safe to work with the young mule. He obeyed this order, and in attempting to start off to his work, the young mule jumped and started to run, the substituted one, instead of holding back as the other had, joined in the run away, and together they became unmanageable, the wagon was turned over, and plaintiff's leg was broken. The superintendent knew the substituted mule would run away, or at least was not a safe companion for the wild one, and he stated to plaintiff when he came to help carry him away from where he was thrown that it was his (the superintendent's) fault. Plaintiff suffered much for a long time. There was a failure to properly set his leg, and he was taken to Omaha, Neb., and placed in a hospital, where with the aid of metal splints or braces a successful setting and healing was had, though his leg remains weak and his capacity for labor has greatly diminished. His expenses were heavy. The foregoing is the case as the evidence in plaintiff's behalf tends to show it. There was substantial contradiction by defendant, but since the verdict is in plaintiff's favor, we must accept the case as made by him.

The questions are: Was defendant guilty of negligence in furnishing plaintiff with an unsafe mule? if he was, was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence or want of ordinary care? and, did plaintiff assume the risk?

The instructions given by the court clearly declared the law as invoked by the parties concerning negligence and contributory negligence, but one offered by d...