Ertl v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1922
• Docket Number: No. 16934.,16934.
• Parties: ERTL v. WAGNER ELECTRIC MFG. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

238 S.W. 577

ERTL v. WAGNER ELECTRIC MFG. CO.

No. 16934.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 7, 1922.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Josephine Ertl against the Wagner Electric Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles A. Houts and Thomas J. Cole, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

D. D. Holmes, of St. Louis, for respondent.

ALLEN, P. J.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant as its servant, and alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff below in the sum' of $5,500, and defendant has brought the case here by appeal.

On November 27, 1918, plaintiff, a young unmarried woman about 22 years of age, was employed by defendant in its factory in the city of St. Louis, and engaged in.drilling slots in certain "brass sockets." In doing this work she operated a drill press at which she sat. In order to drill or cut slots in a socket, the socket was placed in a "jig" which served to hold it in place beneath the drill or "milling cutter" by which the slots were cut. In performing the work plaintiff held the jig in place with her left hand, and with her right hand she operated a lever so as to "bring the drill or milling cutter into the two holes in the jig, first in one and then in the other." On the day above mentioned, while plaintiff was thus at work at the drill press, the jig with which she was working was caught by the rapidly revolving drill and hurled from her grasp, striking the right side of her body, by reason whereof she is alleged to have sustained the injuries for which she seeks to recover in this action.

The petition, inter alia, charges negligence on the part of defendant in failing to provide a guard to prevent the jig from being thrown as aforesaid, in furnishing plaintiff with a drill that was bent, and in furnishing her with a jig that was worn.

It is unnecessary to set forth the evidence in detail, since there is no contention that plaintiff did not make out a case for the jury.

Defendant, appellant here, assigns as error the action of the trial court in permitting a witness for plaintiff, one Edward Stein, defendant's "set up man," to testify that after plaintiff's injury a guard was placed upon the drill press which plaintiff operated. It is unnecessary to refer to the authorities cited and discussed in the briefs touching this matter. The record shows that before the witness Stein was called to the stand plaintiff testified, without objection, that a guard had been placed upon the drill press after her injury. It appears that plaintiff was injured about 10:30 a. m. on the day mentioned. She testified that about 20 minutes later she "went down to the hospital, where she was treated." That afternoon she returned to her place of work, but "it took about an hour and a half to fix her machine." Her further testimony in this connection on direct examination, as it appears in the narrative form in the abstract, is as follows:

"When she returned to work that afternoon Mr. Smith [general foreman] got a new top part for the jig, and there was a brace or guard put on the machine consisting of a piece of metal about eight inches long and one-half inch thick. This guard held the jig more steady. This was the guard she had asked Mr. Johnson [a department foreman] for on Monday."

This testimony came in without objection, and plaintiff was cross-examined in regard to the brace or guard. And, with testimony of this character before the jury, it is quite clear that the subsequent admission of similar testimony by the witness Stein could not be regarded as prejudicial or harmful to defendant.

Defendant urges that the court erred in refusing to strike out the testimony of Edward Stein that the defendant failed to furnish him with "enough drills to supply the girls." When the question was asked which elicited this testimony, defendant's objection was merely, "I object to that." This was so general as to constitute, in law, no objection, and on this ground alone was properly overruled; and there was no error in subsequently refusing to strike out the answer. Furthermore, it appears that testimony of this same character had been previously...