Goodwin v. American Car & Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1926
• Docket Number: No. 19289.,19289.
• Parties: GOODWIN v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

285 S.W. 529

GOODWIN v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.

No. 19289.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 1, 1926.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1926.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William Killoren, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action for personal injuries by James Goodwin against the American Car & Foundry Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Watts & Gentry and Arnot L. Sheppard, all of St. Louis (G. A. Orth, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Mark D. Eagleton and E. J. Hullverson, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff charges in his petition, among other things :

"That on or about the 4th day of January, 1924, he was in the employ of defendant as a laborer at its plant and place of business in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and while engaged in his duties he was seriously and permanently injured as a direct result of the negligence and carelessness of defendant as follows, to wit: (1) Defendant negligently and carelessly ordered, directed, caused, suffered, and permitted plaintiff to roll car wheels along and upon the ground and plates at the place where plaintiff was working when the said ground and plates were wet, slick, slippery, and icy, when defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care would have known, that in attempting to roll said wheels or move said wheels the wheels would be likely to slip on said ground and plates and plaintiff would be likely to be injured. (2) In negligently and carelessly failing and omitting to provide a covering, or to spread cinders, sand, or some other material over and upon the ground and plates where plaintiff was required to move, lift, shove, and roll car wheels, when defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care would have known, that said ground and plates were slippery, and plaintiff, in attempting to do the work aforesaid, would be likely to he injured by reason of said car wheels slipping or sliding onto plaintiff. That while plaintiff was attempting to handle one of the wheels located at said place, as aforesaid, said wheel was caused to slip and slide and roll onto plaintiff's left foot, severely mashing and crushing the bones, muscles, tendons, tissues, cartilages, membranes, nails, and toes thereof, resulting in amputation of the third toe of plaintiff's said left foot, and as a direct result of said injuries the functional use of plaintiff's foot, ankle, toes, and the parts thereof, was seriously impaired, limited, and rendered painful."

The answer denies generally the allegations of the petition and pleads contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, in that it was the duty of the plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, to have sprinkled sand, cinders, or other material, upon the plates where he was working, and that he negligently failed to do so. The cause was tried to a jury, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500, and the defendant appeals.

The plaintiff's testimony tends to show the following state of facts: Plaintiff was injured when a wheel he was handling slipped on the icy surface of steel plates upon which the wheel rested and rolled across the front part of his left foot. He had been working for defendant about seven months before he was injured, and on the morning of January 4, 1924, he started to work at about 7 a. m. and was injured between 7 :25 and 8 a. m. The wheels which were being handled on that day weighed between 625 and 950 pounds, and were old street and freight car wheels, 33 inches high." They were taken out of an open car four wheels at a time by a crane and were placed with other wheels on steel plates, 18 inches square, provided for the wheels to be rolled on. These steel plates covered a portion of the ground, and there was a space about 1½ feet wide and 10 to 25 feet long to roll the wheels on. Two men" were in the car rolling the wheels to the crane, and plaintiff and another workman were on the ground rolling them away from the place where the crane let them down. The wheels which plaintiff had to roll were resting against other wheels on the rim or flange part and leaning partly to the north to prevent them from falling over. The wheel roller would pull the wheels toward the south to get them away from the pile and in a position to roll, and when the wheel would be straightened the roller would roll the wheel east a distance of about 25 feet over the steel plates to a point where they would be stacked. On the day plaintiff was injured there was about half an inch coating of ice on the plates. The wheels were rolled and piled in the open. There was no shed or other protection over them. Plaintiff had nothing to do with putting sand or cinders on the plates, or cleaning them off. When the plates are slippery there should be some sand or cinders on them. This sand or cinders should be spread about half an inch thick, so as to keep the wheels from slipping. Mr. Belmer, plaintiff's foreman, had men there for the purpose of handling sand and cinders and to clean off the snow and ice. On the day of the accident, as the foreman passed along where plaintiff was working,"plaintiff asked him to have sand put on...