Glenn v. American Car & Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 03 May 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19533.,19533.
• Citation: 294 S.W. 1021
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: GLENN v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.

294 S.W. 1021

GLENN v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.

No. 19533.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 3, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Anthony F. Ittner. Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action for personal injuries brought by Willie Glenn, by his next friend, Edward Kooreman, against the American Car & Foundry Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Watts & Gentry and Arnot L. Sheppard, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Foristel, Mudd, Hezel & Habenicht, and F. W. Schwarz, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by Willie Glenn, a minor, while working for defendant. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $300, and defendant appeals.

There were several assignments of negligence in the petition, but all assignments of negligence were withdrawn, except two. One of the assignments of negligence submitted to the jury was the failure to furnish a safe place to work, and the second was based upon a negligent order to work at the place designated. The answer was a general denial.

The evidence discloses that plaintiff was a colored boy, 18 years of age, and was working for defendant as a helper around and about shearing machines. His duties required him to go back of these machines and pick up the pieces of metal remaining after the material had been cut by the shears. When he picked up this material, he was required to throw it into metal boxes. These boxes were about four feet wide, eight feet long, and three and one-half feet deep. Around the sides and ends of the box would be placed pieces of steel for the purpose of forming a sideboard in order that the scrap material might be piled higher than the box itself. At the particular time of his injury plaintiff was working at night, and the accident occurred about 2 o'clock a. m. He had been ordered by the foreman to go to a certain shear and clean up the material at the backside thereof. The shear was cutting what is known as bolster webs, and the pieces to be thrown into the iron box were diamond shaped, and about eight or ten inches wide and three and one-half feet long, with sharp points. When plaintiff went to this machine, he found the scrap material was piled up almost to the knife on the machine. Before he commenced handling the scrap material, he asked the machine operator to have the box containing the scrap material moved, for the reason that the box was filled, and there was no room thereon to place the scrap iron. The operator of the machine, however, told him to go on back of the machine and go to work. While the foreman was not around, plaintiff received his instructions from the machine man at the machine at which he was working. The foreman was not present at the place at the time plaintiff received his injuries. In obedience to the directions and orders of the machine man, he went back of the machine and began cleaning up the scrap material and piling it into the box, when a piece of scrap material slipped off the top of the box containing the scrap material, and the sharp end thereof stuck into plaintiff's foot, just above the instep, and near the ankle.

In view of the questions raised here on appeal, it becomes unnecessary to further detail the evidence. There is considerable inconsistency in plaintiff's testimony, and, upon questions being asked him tending to test the accuracy of his statements and affect his credibility as a witness, his testimony is very unsatisfactory....