Johnson v. American Car & Foundry Co
| Decision Date | 04 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23918 |
| Citation | 259 S.W. 442 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Watts Gentry & Lee, of St. Louis (G. A. Orth, of New York City of counsel), for appellant.
Foristel & Eagleton, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for injuries received by the plaintiff while employed by the defendant. Upon a trial to a jury there was a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 10,000, from which this appeal is perfected.
The plaintiff at the time he was injured was employed by the defendant at a large hydraulic press, between the dies of which his right hand was caught and crushed, necessitating its amputation and a portion of the arm just above the wrist. He had been thus employed for two months before the injury.
The machine was being used at the time in changing the shape of flat pieces of iron which were from 6 to 8 feet in length, 3 inches in width, and three-eighths of an inch thick. The operation of the machine was conducted under the direction of a foreman named Harrison who controlled it by a lever. The length of the machine ran north and south. It was about 8 or 9 feet long and 6 feet wide. As the lower table of the machine arose when the power was applied, it carried the die, in the middle of the table from north to south, upward until it pressed the material against an upper die, which was always stationary. Enormous pressure was thus created, and pieces of iron were thereby pressed into the desired shape. The crew operating the machine was made up of five colored men. Harrison was in charge of the operation of the lever near the northwest corner of the machine. When he moved the lever in one direction, the lower table rose, and when he moved it in the opposite direction it descended, always carrying the lower die with it. The words 'table' and 'die' are used by the witnesses interchangeably, although the latter is but a part of the former. Two of the men stood at the north end of the machine, while plaintiff and another stood at the south end. An overhead crane brought the material and laid it down a short distance from the machine, and one of the men picked up the pieces one at a time and handed them to the plaintiff, who inserted them into the machine, so laying each piece on top of the lower die tat the south end was directly opposite a chalk mark which Harrison, the foreman, had placed on the west edge of the lower die, and then shoving it to the west until it touched a gauge which kept it in the proper position laterally. At the north end of the machine was a corresponding chalk mark to determine that the end of the iron was at the proper place, and, having it so placed, it was Harrison's duty, when the men had removed their hands, to operate the lever so as to apply the power and cause the lower table to rise until the piece of iron was pressed into proper shape between the dies. The movable table was then lowered by Harrison, and one of the men drew out the piece of iron towards the north and passed it on to another, who piled the pieces on the floor.
Instead of letting the lower table all the way down to the level of the floor, which would have made a space of approximately 2 or 2 1/2 feet between the two dies when the pieces of material were being placed in the machine or removed therefrom, Harrison got into the habit of letting the machine down only to a point where the dies would be approximately from 3 to 6 inches apart. Plaintiff's witnesses testified that one of the men spoke to Harrison in the presence of plaintiff about letting the lower table further down, and told him not to pull the lever so soon, but to wait until they had their hands out, and Harrison replied that he would see that everything was clear before he pulled the lever. Sometimes Harrison would start to pull the lever before the men had gotten their hands out, and plaintiff spoke to him about that. The lower table could be stopped at any point, and there was no reason why it should be stopped with the dies so near together. The company did not furnish any hooks or appliances of any kind to use in placing or removing the material, and the men had to use their hands.
While plaintiff was not hired by Harrison, but by a white man named Curlee, the latter told plaintiff that Harrison was to be his boss, and that he should do whatever Harrison told him to do. Harrison directed the men in this crew, and plaintiff took his orders from him.
Harrison sometimes lowered the under table a little more than at other times. Just before the machine was set in motion at the time the plaintiff was injured the two dies were very close together, something like from 3 to 6 inches apart. Just before the accident one of the men again told Harrison to let the die down lower in order to give the men a chance to get their hands out. Such conversations occurred more than once before the accident -- about three or four times. Harrison also had a habit of starting the machine before the men got ready. He had done that two days before the accident and on the day it occurred. Hogan, who was one of the men, said he spoke to Curlee, superintendent, about it, and told him that Harrison...
To continue reading
Request your trial