Eckhardt v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1921
• Docket Number: No. 21682.,21682.
• Parties: ECKHARDT v. WAGNER ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

235 S.W. 117

ECKHARDT v. WAGNER ELECTRIC CO.

No. 21682.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

November 30, 1921.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferriss, Judge.

Action by Benjamin J. Eckhardt against the Wagner Electric Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Albert Blair and Charles A. Routs, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Philip C. Wise and Charles E. Morrow, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

WALKER, J.

This is an action for personal injuries. Upon a trial before a jury in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $8,000. From the judgment rendered thereon defendant has appealed.

The defendant is an electrical manufacturing company, engaged in business in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff was employed by it in the capacity of a foreman of its stamping, or punch press, department. His duties were to see that the product of his department was kept up to the required standard, that the men were employed, and that the machines were kept oiled and running. In plaintiff's department there was a machine called the "Bliss cutting press." It was made of iron and steel, with a heavy flywheel and shafts, and was operated by electrical power; it was provided with a metal punch and crosshead weighing about 175 pounds, which, when in operation, moved up and down between slides on each side. The punch fixed in this crosshead was used for stamping certain metal materials manufactured by the defendant in the course of its business. On the bolster plate below the punch was the die on which the metal to be stamped would be placed. The power necessary for the operation of this machine was turned on by a movable foot lever. When the power was turned on the punch and crosshead would move downward and stamp the metal which had been placed on the iron plate or table. As Song as the foot lever was pressed down the crosshead would descend and rise, and upon the release of the lever the power would be disconnected and the crosshead would remain stationary on an upward stroke.

A short time before the plaintiff's injury the machine had been overhauled by the defendant. On the day of the injury the plaintiff was ordered to put the machine in operation. He was informed by one of the employees that it was stuck or would not work. Finding it properly oiled, he asked an assistant to turn the flywheel and find out the condition of the machine. He found the wheel would not turn. Going to the front of the machine, he put his hand on the bolster plate underneath the die to see if there was oil on the slides, when the punch and crosshead descended and crushed his left hand and forearm. It was necessary to use a pinch bar to raise the crosshead before his hand could be released.

The extent of plaintiff's injury is not a matter of controversy. His testimony is indefinite as to whether the power was on at the time of his injury. No affirmative facts sustain this conclusion. The most that can be said is that, while his hand was on the bolster plate the crosshead descended and crushed it.

One of defendant's witnesses, named Castania, testified that he was called from where he was at work near at hand a few minutes before the injury to help turn the flywheel of the machine. Going to the scene, he found two other employees, Haas and Miller, there. The plaintiff was standing in front of the machine, and the crosshead was at the top, or raised up. He told those present to turn the flywheel. They tried to do so. Failing, they took hold of the wheel and gave it, as they term it, "a round fly." They then turned the wheel backward and then threw it forward. At their third effort something snapped, and the crosshead fell, and plaintiff hallooed. Haas, the other witness, testified that while he was working near the machine some one, he thought it was plaintiff, called him to help turn the flywheel. Plaintiff at the time was standing before the machine. He told them to turn the wheel. They turned it back, and then tried to turn it forward. It stuck, making a clicking noise. They tried again, with the same result, and at this effort the wheel turned loosely, the crosshead fell, and crushed plaintiff's hand. When the crosshead fell the connecting rods which had supported it were broken.

The theory of the defense was that a bolt fastened into the crosshead, called a knockout bolt from its purpose of knocking off metal that was being stamped or pressed after it left the punch, was so adjusted that it did not permit the arms of the eccentric to make a complete revolution without breaking some part of the machinery, and in attempting to turn the flywheel by manual force the breaking of the connecting rods, which had supported the crosshead, resulted. The improper position of the knockout bolt is denied by plaintiff. Plaintiff's years of experience with machines of this character, the nature of his duties in the position he occupied affording him...