Goodson v. Luce

• Decision Date: 27 January 1930
• Docket Number: No. 16811.,16811.
• Citation: 24 S.W.2d 682
• Parties: GOODSON v. LUCE et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

24 S.W.2d 682

GOODSON v. LUCE et al.

No. 16811.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 27, 1930.

Rehearing Denied February 17, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Alice Martha Goodson, by her next friend Harry Greentree, against Lorenzo Luce and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Harris & Koontz, of Kansas City, for appellants.

Mont. T. Prewitt, of Kansas City, for respondent.

BARNETT, C.

This is a suit for personal injuries. Plaintiff, a young lady 18 years of age, was employed by the defendants as an operator of a stitching machine in the manufacturing plant of Luce Trunk Company. She worked one day on creasing work, but on the next day after her employment she was transferred to a stitching machine where the foreman started to instruct her in the manner of operation. He told her how to press her foot on the front part of the pedal to start the power and to press the back part of the pedal to release the power. Before proceeding with any further instructions, it became necessary for him to leave the machine. He gave her a piece of leather and told her to practice stitching until he returned. She started to practice, but in some manner got her finger caught in the machine. The evidence shows that the stitching machine was quite a large machine, operated by motor power. The part of the machine which actually did the sewing was much like the ordinary domestic sewing machine. However, it was much larger, and was equipped with both an awl and a needle, and the needle worked from the bottom rather than from the top. The awl was described as being about the thickness of the lead in a pencil. A two-clawed foot came down and rested upon the leather that was passing through the machine, and both the awl and the needle passed through the slot which separated the two claws of the foot. The foot was raised when the leather was to be placed in the machine.

When plaintiff's finger became caught in the machine, she became dazed and did not know what to do. She tried to call attention to the operators who were near her, but the girl who operated the machine on one side of her did not speak English and the other girl who was near her on the other side was deaf and dumb. Neither one offered any assistance, but finally the wife of the foreman came upon the scene, stopped the operation, and removed plaintiff's finger from the machine. Until the foreman's wife arrived, the awl and needle continually passed through the plaintiff's finger. The foreman's wife put some medicine upon the finger and bound it up and the foreman then sent her to Dr. Hines, who treated the finger by opening up the wound, cauterizing it, and by injecting 1,500 units of tetanus as a prophylactic to prevent lockjaw. After treating the wound with carbolic acid and alcohol, he put a dressing of iodine and cotton wet with alcohol upon the finger and bandaged it.

At the time plaintiff received her injury, she was menstruating. After she had received treatment from Dr. Hines, she was treated every day for three or four weeks, and then every day for another three or four weeks by Dr. Bleil. After she received her injury, her menstruation period would last from a week to two weeks and in July following the accident it lasted for three weeks. Her left ovary was swollen so that a noticeable knot could be seen on her left side. She testified that she had had no trouble with her menses before the injury. She was treated by Dr. Davis, who operated on her on December 31, 1926, by dilating and curetting the uterus and by treating her for a few months on account of her irregular menstruation. She was confined to her bed for about ten days following the operation, but in the following February she was in bed about three and a half weeks, having become sick at her menstrual period. She became pregnant in March, 1927, and gave birth to a child on January 10, 1928, and had no menses after the date of conception until the suit was tried in November, 1928. There was evidence that an infection started in, her hand became swollen, pus formed in the finger, and red streaks ran through her hand and up to her elbow; that she had a kernel in the region of her elbow and another at the armpit. She testified that she had not been able to use her finger as she did before the accident; that it feels numb when it is exposed to cold water or cold weather; that she has difficulty in bending the finger; that the nail came off of the finger several times; that there is a scar on the finger at the base of the nail and the nail is now deformed.

Plaintiff introduced expert medical testimony to the effect that the irregularities of her menses and the trouble which made it necessary that her uterus be dilated and curetted could have been caused by the nervous shock from her injury, coming as it did during her menstrual period. At the request of plaintiff, the court gave instruction No. 1, which is as follows:

"The court instructs the jury that if you find and believe from the evidence that on the 23rd day of March, 1926, plaintiff was a minor, eighteen years of age, if you so find, and if you further find that prior to the bringing of this suit, the uncle of plaintiff, Harry Greentree, was duly appointed her next friend for the purpose of instituting and prosecuting this cause of action; and if you further find and believe from the evidence that on the 23rd day of March, 1926, the defendants were using in their factory plant in Kansas City, Missouri, a certain power sewing machine mentioned in evidence, and that said machine and the awl thereof were so placed, constructed and operated as to be dangerous to persons employed therein or thereabout while engaged in their ordinary duties; and that plaintiff was working on said machine for defendants, if you so find; and if you further find and believe from the evidence that on said date plaintiff was in the employ of the defendants in their said factory plant and engaged in the discharge of her ordinary duties; and if you further find and believe from the evidence that at said time and place, defendants, through their foreman mentioned in evidence caused or directed plaintiff to operate said power machine mentioned in evidence and that while engaged in the ordinary duties of operating said machine, if you so find, plaintiff's finger was injured by the awl thereof, if you find such to be the facts; and if you further find and believe from the evidence that plaintiff was an inexperienced employee, and was ignorant of the danger, if any, incident to the nature of her employment in and about said machine, if you so find, which defendants knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, if you so find, and that defendants negligently failed to warn plaintiff of the danger, if any, necessarily incident to the ordinary use of said power machine and the awl thereof, if you so find, and that defendants negligently failed reasonably to instruct plaintiff in the operation of said machine, and to warn her of such dangers, if any, if you so find; or if you find and believe from the evidence that it was possible and practicable to safely guard the awl of said machine and thus make the same reasonably safe against said danger, if any, and if you further find and believe from the evidence that defendants negligently failed to guard said machine; and if you further find and believe from the evidence that plaintiff's injuries, if any, were the direct result of the negligence of defendants as submitted to you herein, if you find defendants were negligent as submitted to you herein, then your verdict must be in favor of plaintiff, unless you further find and believe from the evidence that plaintiff was...