Johnson v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.

• Citation: 157 S.W. 665
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Decision Date: 19 May 1913
• Parties: JOHNSON v. KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO.

157 S.W. 665

JOHNSON v. KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 19, 1913.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1913.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 933) — REVIEW — APPEAL FROM ORDER GRANTING NEW TRIAL.

Where, after a verdict for plaintiff, the court sustained motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, the Court of Appeals, on plaintiff's appeal, would view his evidence in the light most favorable to the pleaded cause of action.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 278) — ACTIONS FOR INJURIES — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In an action for injuries to an employé in a rolling mill engaged in drawing iron on a truck from the shears to the scales, evidence held to show that the piece of scrap iron in the runway over which he stumbled had fallen from the truck of another set of employés on the preceding day.

3. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 201) — LIABILITY FOR INJURIES — NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW SERVANT.

Where, although the obstruction over which an employé stumbled was dropped in the runway through which he was engaged in drawing iron on a truck by a fellow servant, it had remained there for a sufficient time for the employer, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have discovered and removed it before the injury, the employer was liable, since, where a

fellow servant's negligence is superseded in the chain of causal events by a negligent failure of the employer to discover and rectify the dangerous condition produced thereby, the fellow servant's negligence becomes the remote cause of an injury inflicted after the employer has thus been negligent.

4. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 286) — ACTIONS FOR INJURIES — QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

Where, in an employé's action for injuries caused by stumbling over a piece of scrap iron in the runway through which he was drawing loads of iron on a truck, there was evidence tending to show that the piece of iron was dropped from the truck of another set of employés on the preceding day, and that the employer had given strict orders requiring each set of employés to pick up any scrap falling from their truck, thus recognizing the necessity of keeping the runway clear, it was a question for the jury whether the obstruction had remained in the runway a sufficient time for the employer, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have discovered and removed it before the injury, and whether it was negligence to allow it to remain there from one day to another.

5. MASTER AND SERVANT (§§ 101, 102) — LIABILITY FOR INJURIES — "REASONABLE CARE."

Reasonable care on the part of an employer to discover and rectify dangerous conditions in an employé's working place means care commensurate with the dangers of the employment.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; James H. Slover, Judge.

Action by John Johnson against the Kansas City Bolt & Nut Company. From an order granting motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment after a verdict for plaintiff, he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Forrest M. Kennard and Martin J. O'Donnell, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Rees Turpin, of Kansas City, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

This is a master and servant case. Plaintiff had his leg broken while working at the rolling mills operated by defendant in Kansas City, and alleges that his injury was caused by defendant's negligent failure to exercise reasonable care to provide him a reasonably safe place in which to work. Contributory negligence and assumed risk are pleaded in the answer as special defenses. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, but the court sustained defendant's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment on the ground "that the court erred in not sustaining defendant's demurrer at the close of plaintiff's evidence." Plaintiff appealed and contends that his evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury, and therefore that the demurrer was properly overruled. In such state of case we must view the evidence of plaintiff in its light most favorable to the pleaded cause of action.

Plaintiff had been working almost a year at the mills, and at the time of his injury was a member of a small gang of workmen called "hot shears men." There were two sets of rolls in the mill, and separate gangs of shears men under different foremen were assigned to the shears for...