Gayle v. Missouri Car & Foundry Co.
Decision Date | 30 June 1903 |
Citation | 76 S.W. 987,177 Mo. 427 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | GAYLE v. MISSOURI CAR & FOUNDRY CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John W. Booth, Judge.
Action by James B. Gayle against the Missouri Car & Foundry Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Seddon & Blair and Robert A. Holland, Jr., for appellant. Daniel Dillon and Geo. E. Egger, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of St. Louis county for $5,000. The action was for damages caused by personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in negligently running what was charged to be a transfer car, in its carworks, suddenly and violently against a piece of timber, the end of which was projecting over its track, and which piece of timber plaintiff and others were bringing across said track to the shed in which plaintiff and his gang of workmen were framing box cars under a contract with defendant of $3 for each car framed. The answer was a general denial, a plea of contributory negligence, and that, if the injuries were in any wise caused by the negligence of defendant's employés, said employés were the fellow servants of plaintiff, and plaintiff assumed the risk of any negligence on their part. The reply denied all new matter alleged in the answer.
The petition states, in substance, that the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, and engaged in manufacturing cars in the city of St. Louis, and plaintiff is, and was at the time therein mentioned, a carpenter and contractor, and in the month of July, 1898, he, in conjunction with certain other persons, contracted and agreed with defendant to frame, and do the work in framing, in the sheds and premises of defendant in said city, cars of a certain kind which defendant was then building, and defendant agreed and promised to pay plaintiff and his associates $3 for every one of said cars framed by them. The works or premises of defendant in said city in which said cars were being built constituted, in part, several large sheds, between which ran a transfer track, on which was run by defendant, by means of one engine, a transfer car or platform, which was used to transfer cars from one of said sheds to another. The west one of said sheds on the south side of said transfer track previous to August 22, 1898, was the one in which said cars were framed by plaintiff and his associates; and, in bringing the timbers used in framing said cars, plaintiff and his associates did not have to bring or carry said timbers across the said transfer track. On said 22d day of August, 1898, defendant directed plaintiff and his associates to move from said west shed into the east shed, on the south side of said transfer track, and to frame said cars in said east shed, and thereupon plaintiff and his associates began to frame cars in said east shed. The timbers to be used in framing said ears were required to be brought into said east shed by carrying them across said transfer track—a fact well known to defendant and its superintendent and foreman. And on the 23d day of August, 1898, plaintiff and his said associates were engaged in bringing into said east shed a long and heavy timber, to be used in framing said cars; and when one end of said timber was in said shed, and the other or hind end still projected over and across a rail of said transfer track, and while plaintiff and his associates were engaged in trying to bring the whole of said timber into said shed, the portion of said timber which projected over and across said rail of said transfer track was suddenly and violently struck and pushed by said transfer car or platform and a railroad car which stood on said platform, and said timber was shoved and pushed with great force against a post, causing the other or forward end of said timber, near which plaintiff was, to strike plaintiff, and to force and press him with great force and violence against another timber or post, thereby crushing, mangling, and injuring plaintiff internally and externally, and crippling, injuring, and disabling him for life. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
E. C. Robinson Lumber Co. v. Lowrey
... ... corporation, and Roger A. Bailey, Trustee, Defendants ... Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri ... March 11, 1955 ... Bailey & Craig, Sikeston, for defendant-appellant, ... Reppy, 46 Mo. 606; Draper v. Fitzgerald, 30 Mo.App. 518, 521-522(1). See and compare also Gayle v. Missouri Car & Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 427, 76 S.W. 987, 993(5); Brown v. General Motors ... ...
-
Galentine v. Borglum
... ... AXEL BORGLUM ET AL., APPELLANTS ... No. 19808 ... Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri ... April 7, 1941 ... [150 S.W. 1089] ... Appeal from Gentry Circuit Court ... Gayle v. Mo. Car & Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 447, 76 S.W. 987, 992; Hoelker v. American Press, 296 S.W. 1008, ... ...
-
Bloecher v. Duerbeck
... ... ESTATE OF WILLIAM DUERBECK, Appellant ... No. 30723 ... Supreme Court of Missouri, Division One ... August 3, 1933 ... Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St ... Gayle v. Mo. Car Foundry Co., 76 S.W. 987; Crenshaw v. Ullman, 20 S.W. 1078, 113 Mo. 639; O'Hara v ... ...
-
Gaty v. United Rys. Co.
... 251 S.W. 61 ... UNITED RYS. CO ... No. 23841 ... Supreme Court of Missouri, In Banc ... April 28, 1923 ... [251 S.W. 62] ... Appeal from St. Louis ... & Telegraph Co., 280 Mo. 360, 217 S. W. 831; State v. Crone, 209 Mo. 316, 108 S. W. 555; Gayle v. Mo. Car & F. Co., 177 Mo. 427, 76 S. W. 987 ... Where, as here, other ... W. 555; Kettlehake v. Am. Car & F. Co., 171 Mo. App. 528, 153 S. W. 552; Gayle v. Oar & Foundry Co., 177 Mo. 427, 76 S. W. 987; McMahon v. Railways Co. (Mo. App.) 203 S. W. 500. Furthermore, this ... ...