Jamison v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Co.

• Decision Date: 09 July 1930
• Docket Number: No. 29247.,29247.
• Citation: 30 S.W.2d 984
• Parties: JAMISON v. FLOUR CITY ORNAMENTAL IRON CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

30 S.W.2d 984

JAMISON v. FLOUR CITY ORNAMENTAL IRON CO.

No. 29247.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

July 9, 1930.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled September 4, 1930.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor Falkenhainer, Judge.

Action by Bert C. Jamison against the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company and the Westlake Construction Company. Plaintiff dismissed as to defendant last named, and from a judgment for plaintiff, the first-named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Wm. R. Schneider, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Bartley & Mayfield, of St. Louis, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Plaintiff, foreman for the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company, sustained injuries by falling through a hole in the floor of a building in the course of construction. At the time he was in the service of said company. The Westlake Construction Company was the general contractor. It sublet much of the work to other contractors, including the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company, who contracted to do certain iron work on the building.

Plaintiff seeks damages. He charged the defendants with negligence as follows: (a) Failure to exercise ordinary care to furnish light where the hole was located when they knew that plaintiff's work would be in and about said hole. (b) Failure to guard the hole or give warning by placing a light near the hole. (c) Failure to warn plaintiff of the hole.

The answer was a general denial and plea of contributory negligence. The reply was a general denial.

Plaintiff dismissed as to the Westlake Construction Company. Verdict of $13,500 against the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company. Judgment accordingly, and defendant appealed.

By direction of defendant's superintendent, plaintiff and other employees on Saturday, January 2, 1926, went to the building (285 feet long and 150 feet wide) to spot some grilles at or near the places they would be used in the structure on the following Monday. One of the grilles was for use at a window on the north side of the basement mezzanine. On going to this floor plaintiff discovered it was dark. He then walked toward the window to remove the covering therefrom that they might have light to enable them to spot the grille. In doing so he walked into a hole in the floor and was injured. No light fixtures were in the basement mezzanine at the north end of the building. There was a light thirty feet from the hole. When turned on this afforded sufficient light to enable one on this floor to see the hole. Extension cords could be attached to the light fixtures and defendant had at its place of business such cords for use by its employees. However, plaintiff had not during the time of his employment found it necessary to use them in the performance of his duties. On working days the watchman of the building turned on the lights at 7:30 a. m., but on this Saturday he did not do so, for most of the workmen did not return that day. Plaintiff was not familiar with the building and did not know the location of the light fixtures. In June, 1925, he measured this window opening in the wall. In doing so he walked to the window and at that time no hole was in the floor. Subsequently he helped unload material into the building on two or three occasions, and in December, 1925, worked three days in the south part of the building.

I. Defendant contends that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, in that he failed to use light extension cords, failed to request the watchman to turn on the lights, and failed to look where he was walking.

On discovering that part of the building in darkness, plaintiff did not send to headquarters for extension cords, did not look for light fixtures, and could not have seen them if he had done so. Neither did he call on the watchman to turn on the lights. He noticed a little light coming...