Edwards v. Morehouse Stave & Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 2311.,2311.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: EDWARDS v. MOREHOUSE STAVE & MPG. CO.

204 S.W. 545

EDWARDS v. MOREHOUSE STAVE & MPG. CO.

No. 2311.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 25, 1918.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. P. Foard, Judge.

Action by William Edwards against the Morehouse Stave & Manufacturing Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Sheppard & Sheppard, of Poplar Bluff, for appellant. Hill & Phillips and John A. Gloriod, all of Poplar Bluff, for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

The plaintiff lost his hand by same coming in contact with a barrel or drum saw used for sawing staves at defendant's factory. He was one of the two persons operating this saw. Beneath this saw was a chute to catch the sawdust and carry same through a hole in the floor. This chute became clogged with sawdust, and, while plaintiff was attempting to loosen same by means of a stick which he picked up for that purpose, his hand or arm was drawn against the saw, cutting off the hand. This suit is for damages for such injury, and the negligence alleged is that defendant negligently constructed and maintained a defective and dangerous chute to carry the sawdust from the saw, in that same was constructed in an almost horizontal position, but slightly oblique, when same should have been perpendicular or nearly so, so that the sawdust would of its own weight pass down such chute; that because of the insufficient incline to such chute the sawdust accumulated therein and made it necessary for plaintiff, from time to time, to push same down with a stick, bringing his hand in danger from the saw. Plaintiff further alleges that he had reported to defendant the improper and dangerous condition of this chute, and that defendant's foreman had promised to remedy the defect and put same in a reasonably safe condition. Relying on this promise, plaintiff says he continued his work and cleared the chute of sawdust by the use of a stick, the only means provided, whenever same became clogged. In so doing he received the injury for which he obtained a judgment, and defendant appeals.

The evidence does not show at what angle of incline this chute or trough was placed, but same was within a few inches of the saw at the upper end and then passed under the saw, so as to catch the sawdust, and the other end came down to the opening in the floor. This chute became clogged quite frequently, and there was no other method of clearing same, except in the manner employed by plaintiff or by stopping the machinery. The plaintiff says that with the foreman's knowledge he had always used this method of cleaning this chute with no admonition of the foreman other than to be careful. He had never been directed to have the machinery stopped while so doing. That this method of cleaning the chute was dangerous is attested by the fact that the defendant's foreman, as well as several coemployés, say that they warned plaintiff to be careful or his hand would be caught by the saw.

The question of most importance here arises from the fact that plaintiff about a week after his injury executed a release of any cause of action or claim for damages in consideration of defendant's payment of his doctor bills. After his injury, some of defendant's employés first called Dr. Greathouse, who rendered him first aid only. On this doctor's advice he was taken to a hospital at Poplar Bluff, Mo., where his arm was amputated. He remained at the hospital for a week and was thereafter given medical and surgical attention until his arm healed. In consideration of defendant's paying these bills, the plaintiff executed a release of any claim for damages, and defendant pleaded such release in bar of this action. The plaintiff by his reply sought to avoid such release on two grounds: (1) That plaintiff was at the time mentally and physically incapable of contracting, and that same was obtained by fraud; and (2) that such release is without any consideration to support same, in that defendant in paying these doctor bills was merely discharging its own obligation and not any obligation of plaintiff.

The evidence in regard to this matter is that defendant company had wide no arrangements or agreement to furnish its employés medical attention in case of sickness or accident and kept no doctor in its employ The defendant's superintendent said that in such cases they called any physician who might be available. When plaintiff was injured, the superintendent directed some of the employés to help take care of him and get a doctor. He said he had nothing to do with plaintiff's being taken to the hospital. This was done by direction of Dr. Greathouse, because, as be says, it was a hospital case, and that was the proper thing to do. The plaintiff was partially or wholly unconscious and merely submitted to what others were doing for him. There appears to have been no express contract, or in fact anything said by any one, as to paying for the medical services rendered. The hospital surgeon says that he looked to defendant company for his pay, but...