Furber v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.

Citation185 Mo. 301,84 S.W. 890
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Decision Date22 December 1904
PartiesFURBER v. KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO.

1. Plaintiff, engaged in fastening certain beams, was injured by the fall of one of them after the block and tackle by which it had been raised into place had been removed. As soon as the beam was placed in position, temporary bolts were inserted to hold it while permanent bolts were being adjusted, and the nuts thereon screwed tight. The beam fell after the temporary bolts had been inserted, by reason of the breaking of a bolt. Held that, the tackle being unnecessary to hold the beam after the temporary bolts had been inserted, defendant was not guilty of negligence in removing it before the bolts had been permanently adjusted.

2. In an action for injuries to a servant by the fall of a beam, caused by the breaking of a bolt used to secure it, an allegation that defendant did not properly examine and inspect the bolt, as an independent act of actionable negligence, was not well pleaded, since, unless the bolt was defective, the absence of inspection was not material.

3. Where defendant, engaged in manufacturing bolts and nuts to the number of 60,000 or 70,000 bolts a day, caused them all to be inspected by men who handled them before they were sent to the threading department, and after that they were again examined—the custom being to test a bolt occasionally by breaking it and examining the fiber, and, if this process showed that the material or process used was defective, the same would be changed—it was not error to refuse to submit the question of defendant's negligence in failing to properly inspect a bolt, the breaking of which was alleged to have caused injuries to a servant; there being no suggestion of a better method of inspection than that employed.

4. In an action for injuries to a servant by the falling of a beam, caused by an alleged defective bolt, evidence held insufficient to justify the court in submitting defendant's alleged negligence in furnishing a defective bolt to the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; William B. Teasdale, Judge.

Action by William A. Furber against the Kansas City Bolt & Nut Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

L. F. Bird and H. G. Pope, for appellant. Pratt, Dana & Black, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

Plaintiff, in the service of defendant, was assisting in placing in position an iron beam, when the beam fell and struck him, and inflicted injury. He sues for $25,000 damages, alleging that the accident occurred through defendant's negligence. It was an iron beam, called in the record an "eye beam" or "I beam," about 18 feet long, weighing several hundred pounds. The object was to fasten it to girders in the roof so as to have it in position to connect with machinery to be afterwards attached. There were six or eight of those beams to be so used, and the task of placing them was assigned to the plaintiff and his fellow servant Fagan. The mode of operation was to swing the beam up to the height desired by means of a block and tackle, and so hold it until it was fastened at each end to the girder by bolts and nuts—two bolts at each end; the plaintiff fastening one end, and Fagan the other. Each of the men stood, while doing the work, on a swinging platform. All of the beams intended to be put in place in this way had been so fastened, except one. As to that one, the plaintiff had fastened his end; had put in the two bolts, and screwed on the nuts to hold them. Fagan had put his two bolts in, and had given the nut on one of them about two turns, catching hold of about two threads—just enough, as he thought, to hold it temporarily until he could fasten the other bolt. While it was in this condition, the block and tackle with which the beam had been swung up was removed by the foreman. Fagan discovered that, to properly adjust the other bolt, he needed a washer, and said to the plaintiff that he would get down and get one; but plaintiff, having finished his end, offered to get down and get the washer for him, and did so, and gave it to him. Fagan adjusted the washer, turned on the nut, and screwed it tight with his wrench—almost as close as it would go, and, to make it as tight as possible, threw his strength on the wrench to give the nut another turn, when the bolt broke under the strain, and the other bolt, on which the nut had but a slight hold, pulled out by force of the jar, and that end of the beam fell and struck the plaintiff. The petition charges that the defendant was negligent in three particulars: First, that it made the bolt out of inferior iron, and allowed scrap steel to be mixed with the scrap iron out of which it was made, in consequence of which the steel in the mixture became burnt and rotten, rendering the bolt weak in places; second, that the defendant did not properly examine and inspect the bolt; third, defendant caused the block and tackle to be taken away before the beam was fastened. The answer was a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant asked an instruction looking to a nonsuit, which was refused, and exception taken. At the close of all the evidence the case was given to the jury, who returned a verdict for the defendant. Final judgment followed, and the plaintiff appealed.

We will consider the evidence bearing on the three alleged acts of negligence in the inverse order in which they are pleaded:

3. The removal of the block and tackle: The office of the block and tackle, as shown by the evidence, was to lift the beam up to the position in which it was to be fastened. As soon as it was lifted up, the ends were placed in position, and two bolts were inserted through each end. These bolts, when first inserted, are called in the evidence "temporary bolts," which signifies that after being inserted they are to be adjusted by washers before being fastened permanently with the nuts, and in thus adjusting them they may be removed one at a time, leaving the other in place to hold up the beam. When the washers are applied and the bolt is adjusted, the nut is screwed tight, and the bolt is then permanent. When the temporary bolts are inserted, they are sufficient to hold the beam in place while the operators are making the adjustment. One bolt on each end is sufficient to hold the beam alone. The only reason two are placed in each end is that machinery is to be afterwards attached, and then two are required. While the other beams, before this one, were being placed in position, the block and tackle were left at each beam until the bolts were securely fastened, and then they were moved on to swing the next beam into place. But there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that the block and tackle were kept there to hold or to help hold the beam from falling, but only that it was left there until it was needed elsewhere, and because it would be needed for the next beam as soon as the one in hand was finished. When the last beam was lifted up, and the temporary bolts inserted in each end, the block and tackle had done all that they were designed to do, and they were removed. Plaintiff relies on the testimony of his witness Fagan and the defendant's witness Neville to sustain the charge that it was negligence to remove the block and tackle at that time, but neither of them gives the idea that the block and tackle were designed to hold the beam in place until the nuts were tightened, or that it was deemed necessary. They both said that the temporary bolts were sufficient, and Neville said that he considered it entirely safe to take the block and tackle away after the temporary bolts had been inserted. The fact that Fagan did not turn the nut a little closer on the temporary bolt, and the fact that the other bolt broke, brought about a condition that the evidence does not warrant us in concluding was to have been reasonably expected or to be guarded against. Plaintiff and his witness and fellow servant Fagan were there when the block and tackle were removed, and, if either considered that the danger was enhanced, thereby he gave no indication of it. Of course, after the catastrophe has occurred, we can see how it might have been avoided. If the block and tackle had remained holding the beam, or if a strong scaffold had been erected there to catch it in case it should fall, the accident would not have occurred. And it is equally true that, if the plaintiff had not been standing where he was, he would not have been hurt. If this was a result that might reasonably have been anticipated, a question might arise as to whether the plaintiff, who had already finished what he was to do, was observing the care that was to have been expected of him, in remaining standing under the beam. If it was an accident that in its nature could with reason have been expected, then it was the duty of the defendant to have left the block and tackle there, or to have erected a scaffold, or to have made reasonable guard in some way against it. But it is for failure to exercise forethought that the master is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • McCormick v. Lowe and Campbell Ath. Goods Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Septiembre 1940
    ...55 Mo. App. 406; Reichla v. Gruensfelder, 52 Mo. App. 43; Gummerson v. Bolt & Nut Co., 185 Mo. App. 7, 171 S.W. 959; Furber v. K.C. Bolt & Nut Co., 185 Mo. 301, 84 S.W. 890. (e) Plaintiff's two vaults at low height did not test soundness of entire pole. (3) Defendant's other contentions tha......
  • Gerber v. City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1924
    ...give said defendant's peremptory instruction at the close of all the evidence. Purcell v. Tennent Shoe Company, 187 Mo. 276; Furber v. Bolt & Nut Co., 185 Mo. 301; Coin v. Lounge Co., 222 Mo. 488; Warner v. Co., 178 Mo. 125; Knorpp v. Wagner, 195 Mo. 637; John v. Birmingham Realty Co., 172 ......
  • Wright v. Quattrochi.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 1932
    ...against defendants, and a verdict based thereon would have to be set aside. Layton v. Chinberg (Mo. Sup.), 282 S.W. 434; Furber v. Bolt & Nut Co., 185 Mo. 301. (c) These alleged admissions against interest by Mr. Quattrochi could, at most, have only the effect of impeaching the colored driv......
  • Flack v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Julio 1920
    ...& Nut Co., 185 Mo. 301, 311, 84 S.W. 890; Turner v. Anderson, 260 Mo. 1, 29, 168 S.W. 943, and Huffnagle v. Pauley, 219 S.W. 373,379. In the Furber case we "In considering whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on this specification we must give him the benefit of every......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT