Doody v. California Woolen Mills Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 13984.,13984. |
| Citation | 230 S.W. 377 |
| Parties | DOODY v. CALIFORNIA WOOLEN MILLS CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gasconade County; R. A. Breuer, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Patrick J. Doody against the California Woolen Mills Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
R. M. Embry and S. C. Gill, both of California, Mo., and Robert Walker, of Hermann, for appellant.
I. B. Kimbrell and Martin J. O'Donnell, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for an injury arising out of the alleged negligence of the defendant whereby plaintiff, an employé of defendant, was made blind by the splashing of sulphuric acid into " his face and eyes from a carboy which he and another workman were attempting to move from one place to another.
Upon the first trial there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $10,000, but on appeal to the Supreme Court the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial for error in refusing to give an instruction involving the theory that the injury was the result of a mere accident, and not negligence. See Doody v. California Woolen Mills Co., 216 S. W. 531.
After the cause was remanded it was again tried, resulting in a verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor for $6,000; and from this defendant has again appealed, the amount of the second judgment bringing the case to this court.
Among other things, the petition charged that there was a hole in the floor adjacent to the place where the carboy of acid was stationed, the existence of which hole was known, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have been known, to defendant before plaintiff was injured; that defendant failed to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work, in that, although defendant's foreman knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the sulphuric acid was a very dangerous substance and a deadly poison, and that the workmen engaged in lifting the containers thereof were liable to be injured by the contents of the carboy splashing upon them, yet he negligently failed to cause a cover to be placed upon or a cork put in said carboy, and when plaintiff and a fellow workman attempted to lift said car.. boy the fellow workman slipped on said greasy floor and into said hole, thereby causing, as a direct result thereof, the contents of said carboy to splash upon and injure plaintiff; that defendant could have made said place reasonably safe by repairing said hole, but negligently failed to do so, whereby, as a direct result of said negligence, the plaintiff was injured in the particulars enumerated.
The answer was a general denial courted with a plea of contributory negligence as to "the `manner' in which plaintiff and his co-employé moved and handled the carboy." Opinion on former appeal 216 S. W. 531, loc. cit. 534.
It is hardly necessary to again set out in detail the facts as shown by the record, since the case was tried substantially on the same evidence as in the trial which was reviewed by the Supreme Court, and the facts are fully and carefully stated in that opinion.
For convenience and clarity, however, we may say the evidence tends to show that, as the foreman, Morganson, was passing through the room in the old mill, on the boor of which sat the carboy in question, he told the plaintiff to help Waller "take that carboy into the house," meaning to take it oil; of the room in the old mill building where it was into the new building; that the foreman sent Waller and plaintiff to get the carboy of acid and bring it out of the old building where it was into the new building. The evidence in plaintiff's behalf is that neither plaintiff nor Waller had ever handled carboys of acid before; that there were no handles on the carboy or casing surrounding it, only narrow cleats with_a groove on the underside into which the fingers could be inserted; that the carboy weighed from 180 to 220 pounds, and the casing about the carboy was in a bad condition; that plaintiff asked Waller how would be the best way to get hold of it, and Waller told him, as the "handles" (cleats) looked bad, the best way would be to get their hands under the bottom and raise it up; they did this, but, the carboy being very heavy, the fellow workman, Waller, stepped back a little, and his foot went through the hole in the floor, causing the carboy to fall to the floor and splash the liquid up into plaintiff's face, severely burning him and destroying his sight. There was evidence that the existence of the hole was known to defendant so as to make it negligent to leave it there or to order the men to move the carboy with such a defect existing in the floor. The foreman, a witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Took v. Wells
... ... 673; Esstman v. United Railways ... Co., 216 S.W. 526; Doody v. Woolen Mills Co., ... 230 S.W. 377. And under the circumstances, ... ...
-
Took v. Wells
...ex rel. Goessling v. Daues, 314 Mo. 287; Rettlia v. Salomon, 308 Mo. 673; Esstman v. United Railways Co., 216 S.W. 526; Doody v. Woolen Mills Co., 230 S.W. 377. And under the circumstances, because of the obvious errors in these instructions noted by the trial court, said instructions were ......
-
Dixon v. Frazier-Davis Construction Co.
... ... master gave such order. Doody v. Woolen Mills Co., ... 230 S.W. 377; Albrecht v. Belting Co., 299 ... the work which was safe. In Doody v. California Woolen ... Mills Co., 230 S.W. 377, the court ruled that an ... ...
-
Doody v. California Woolen Mills Co.
...City Court of Appeals, where that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for error in giving plaintiff's instruction. Doody v. Woolen Mills Co., 230 S. W. 377. Following the second appeal, plaintiff filed an amended petition on May 16, 1923, upon which the last trial was, had. The ame......