Edwards v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 11861.,11861. |
| Citation | 185 S.W. 1147 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. KANSAS CITY STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Harris Robinson, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Thomas Edwards against the Kansas City Structural Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Lathrop, Morrow, Fox & Moore, of Kansas City, for appellant. Langsdale & Howell, of Kansas City, for respondent.
Plaintiff's action is for damages alleged to have resulted to him by reason of personal injury received while in defendant's employment. He recovered judgment in the circuit court for $8,000, of which amount he remitted $500, and defendant appealed.
Plaintiff, a man with long experience in steel structural work, was engaged with a number of others in erecting the steel structure of a large hotel building in Kansas City. In erecting the building a large derrick was used, and it became necessary to move this to higher positions as the structure grew from story to story. The derrick was of great height, with wide swing or reach, and immense weight. An engine was the force used in moving it. It became necessary to move the derrick from the second to the fourth floor; the steel structure having progressed that far. It is not necessary to state the detail of measures taken to make this change, nor the precise way in which it was done. Suffice it to say that guy ropes, held by several men, prevented the parts of the derrick from swaying. In the structure there were metal brackets, called lugs, attached or fastened to I-beams which formed the columns of the structure. The brackets or lugs protruded from the columns and were to hold the ends of the steel girders. A large manila rope was necessary in moving the derrick, and it was in such position that, in the present instance, at least, it was liable to come in contact with a certain bracket or lug, and there was risk, when stretched taut, that it would be severed by the bracket.
Plaintiff was placed in charge of one of the guy ropes at the fourth floor, and he took position astride of one of the girders. The foreman noticed that the manila rope was about to come against one of the brackets we have described, and he directed two employés, one with a 2×4 piece of timber and the other with a wrench, to undertake to hold the rope out from the bracket. They failed, and the rope was cut in two by the bracket, and the derrick was thereby caused to fall back to the second floor. In an effort to escape injury, plaintiff stood up and ran rapidly along the girder for a space of 15 feet to a column. This column, or rather the splice or brace for a column, only extended about 30 inches above the girder, and plaintiff ran into it, striking himself in the abdomen, and inflicting the injury for which he instituted this action.
There are technical points raised in the case which it will not be necessary to notice; for we have concluded that one of the instructions given for plaintiff is wholly inconsistent with the petition, in that it submits hypotheses of negligence not declared on, and omits those that were pleaded. There were what may be termed three parts to the petition. The first and third were abandoned, leaving to be found in the second the entire charge of negligence upon which the case rests. It is this: That while the derrick...
To continue reading
Request your trial