Harris v. H. D. Williams Cooperage Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1904
• Citation: 107 Mo. App. 249,80 S.W. 924
• Parties: HARRIS v. H. D. WILLIAMS COOPERAGE CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

80 S.W. 924

107 Mo. App. 249

HARRIS v. H. D. WILLIAMS COOPERAGE CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 10, 1904.

MASTER AND SERVANT—PERSONAL INJURIES— NEGLIGENCE—EVIDENCE—QUESTION FOR JURY—ASSUMPTION OF RISK.

1. In an action by a servant against the master for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of the foreman in ordering plaintiff and fellow workmen, engaged in lowering a heavy casting, to release the same, evidence considered, and held sufficient to justify submission to the jury of the issue of defendant's negligence.

2. The operation of lowering by hand a circular piece of cast iron, from six to eight feet in diameter, five-eighths of an inch in thickness, and weighing upwards of a thousand pounds, from its edge to a flat position on the floor, was not so inherently dangerous as to charge a laborer engaged in the work with assumption of risk.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. L. Fort, Judge.

Action by William A. Harris against the H. D. Williams Cooperage Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

D. W. Hill, for appellant. L. F. Dinning, for respondent.

REYBURN, J.

From ruling of lower court granting an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, plaintiff has appealed. The petition contained averments to the effect that plaintiff, with other laborers under control and direction of defendant's foreman, Early, were lowering with their hands a large and very heavy iron machine known as a "steamer base," and the foreman above named, while plaintiff was partially thereunder in a perilous position, as was known or should have been known to him, carelessly and negligently, without warning, ordered the other employés having hold of such appliance to turn it loose before plaintiff had time or opportunity to get entirely out from under it; that defendant had failed to provide blocks or other safeguard for such steamer base to rest upon after it might be turned loose, to furnish which would have been the usual, customary, and only safe method of doing such work; that, in obedience to the orders of the foreman, the members of the gang of workmen having hold of such machine, except plaintiff, turned it loose, causing it to suddenly and violently fall to the floor before plaintiff had time or opportunity to get entirely from under; that such order was untimely, unusual, and wholly unexpected, and therefore the result of failure of the foreman to exercise ordinary care and caution; that, as the foreman knew or should have known, plaintiff at the time was in such position that he could not turn loose of and get entirely from under such steamer base, and in falling it caught and cruched off the end of his second finger of his left hand; and damages in consequence were averred, and judgment asked.

The defenses pleaded were contributory negligence on part of plaintiff and negligence of his fellow servants. The testimony...