Creighton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
Decision Date | 04 December 1934 |
Citation | 66 S.W.2d 980,229 Mo.App. 325 |
Parties | JAMES D. CREIGHTON, RESPONDENT, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Cass County.--Hon. Leslie A. Bruce Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Thomas J. Cole, L. J. Bishop and D. C. Chastain for appellant.
Kennard & Gresham for respondent.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the loss of his left hand caused by the alleged negligence of defendant. He obtained a judgment in the sum of $ 3000, from which the defendant has appealed.
The action is based upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
The assignments of error are: (1) That the court erred in refusing to direct verdict for defendant; (2) in giving plaintiff's Instruction A and, (3), in refusing to discharge the jury.
It was incumbent upon plaintiff to show that at the time of injury he was engaged in interstate commerce or "with its instrumentalities," and that the negligence of the defendant was the direct cause of his injuries. Absent either element plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict.
On August 9, 1931, and continuously for several years immediately preceding that date, plaintiff was "helper hostler," working for defendant in its yards in Osawatomie, Kansas. It was the duty of plaintiff and defendant's hostler, Lucas, to service the defendant's engines which came into its said yards. The hostler, in speaking of the work in which the plaintiff was engaged, testified:
The plaintiff after preparing the engine referred to by the hostler and while awaiting the arrival of the Rainbow, one of defendant's interstate trains, went a short distance to get a drink of water. Upon his way to the coal chute he picked up a gas pipe four or five feet in length which was lying upon the ground at the side of the track, intending to throw it up an incline and onto a junk pile; that in attempting to throw the pipe one end of it struck the incline and an explosion followed, causing him to lose his left hand.
Plaintiff, though he did not see the explosive, testified that he knew from the "sound and smoke" that it was a torpedo, and that he did not know whether it was upon the ground or in the pipe.
The evidence offered by plaintiff, as well as the evidence introduced by defendant, shows that the explosive which caused plaintiff to be injured was a torpedo.
The ruling of the court in refusing to direct verdict for the defendant is assailed from many angles, the first of which is that plaintiff was not engaged in interstate commerce.
The facts bearing on the question, briefly stated, are: Plaintiff and defendant's hostler having prepared one of defendant's engines were thereupon required to await arrival in the yards of an engine engaged in interstate commerce which it was their duty to service. While waiting the plaintiff stepped aside to get a drink of water. In returning to the place of waiting he sustained injury, for which he is seeking to recover damages. The question is, was plaintiff engaged in interstate commerce during the time in which the performance of his duty required him to await the arrival of defendant's interstate train for the purpose of servicing its engine? The defendant, although conceding, at least, tacitly, that the work of servicing an interstate engine is a task in interstate commerce, argues that plaintiff, while waiting to perform such task, was not within the protection of the Federal Act.
In support of that position defendant relies upon authorities, in one of which the court said:
"By the terms of the Employers' Liability Act the true test is the nature of the work being done at the time of the injury, and the mere expectation that plaintiff would presently be called upon to perform a task in interstate commerce is not sufficient to bring the case within the act." [Erie R. R. Company v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 61 L.Ed. 319, 37 S.Ct. 116.]
The rule announced in the Welsh case does not apply to the facts here involved. In the instant case plaintiff had completed the performance of an intrastate task and was, at the time of injury, performing the duty of awaiting the arrival of his master's interstate train in order that he might service it. He was not merely expecting presently to be called upon to perform a task in interstate commerce. Duty had summoned him to wait. Waiting was his task as much as was the actual physical labor to be performed in preparing the engine. Upon the facts the case comes within the principle announced in the case of St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Company v. Seale, 229 U.S. 156, 57 L.Ed. 1129, 33 S.Ct. 651.
In the Seale case the injured employee was a yard clerk.
We hold upon the facts in evidence plaintiff at the time of injury was engaged in interstate commerce.
The defendant insists that there was no evidence showing that it "could have detected the presence" of the torpedo in its yards. Of course, the defendant was not guilty of actionable negligence unless it knew or should in the exercise of due care have known of the presence of the torpedo. The torpedos kept by defendant in its supply house in the yards were red in color. After a torpedo was placed upon the ground at the place of accident it presently became covered with coal dust and "looked like a lump of coal." The defendant had employees whose duty it was to keep its yards clean, to remove a torpedo if one were found and to remove all obstructions which might endanger an employee in the performance of his duties. These employees cleaned that part of the yards adjacent to the coal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
... ... 39417 Supreme Court of Missouri December 3, 1945 ... ... Rehearing Denied January 7, 1946 ... Fleming, 284 S.W. 794; Israel v. Wabash Ry ... Co., 239 S.W. 81; Fitzsimmons v. Mo. Pac. Ry ... Co., 241 S.W. 915, 294 Mo. 551; Johnson v. Chicago, & E.I. Ry Co., 64 S.W.2d 674, 334 ... Boyer v. Railroad Co., 293 S.W. 386; ... Walsh v. Drewes, 38 S.W.2d 271; Creighton v ... Railroad Co., 229 Mo.App. 325, 66 S.W.2d 980; Murphy ... v. Fred Wolferman, 347 Mo ... ...
-
Moses v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
... 188 S.W.2d 538 239 Mo.App. 361 Josie Moses v. Independence, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation and Kansas City Public Service Company, a Corporation Court of Appeals of ... Webster ... Grove Gen. Sewer Dist. No. 1, 327 Mo. 594, 37 S.W.2d ... 905; Creighton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 229 Mo.App ... 325, 66 S.W.2d 980; Morrison v. Painter (Mo. App.), ... ...
-
Collector of Revenue of Jackson County v. Parcels of Land Encumbered With Delinquent Tax Liens, Parcel No. 3-2170
...212 S.W.2d 746 357 Mo. 1231 Collector of Revenue of Jackson County, Missouri, and William Brant, Purchaser, v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, Parcel ... State ex rel. v. Webster Grove Sewer Dist ... No. 1, 327 Mo. 594, 37 S.W.2d 905; Creighton v. Mo ... Pac. Ry. Co., 229 Mo.App. 325, 66 S.W.2d 980. (6) The ... landowner had no right to ... ...