Komor v. Liberty Foundry Co., No. 19727.

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtSutton
Citation300 S.W. 1028
PartiesKOMOR v. LIBERTY FOUNDRY CO.
Decision Date10 January 1928
Docket NumberNo. 19727.
300 S.W. 1028
KOMOR
v.
LIBERTY FOUNDRY CO.
No. 19727.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
January 10, 1928.

[300 S.W. 1029]

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Harry A. Rosskopf, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by William Komor against the Liberty Foundry Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Kelley, Starke & Hassett, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Jones, Mocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.


This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant as a molder at its plant in the city of St. Louis.

The petition charges that plaintiff's injuries were directly caused by the negligence of defendant in this, to wit:

"(1) That defendant negligently ordered, required, and instructed plaintiff to work on and about said floor when said floor was covered with pieces of hardened metal, that would roll and prevent plaintiff from retaining a firm footing on said floor, when defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, of said condition of said floor.

"(2) That defendant negligently and carelessly failed and omitted to exercise ordinary care to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work, in that said floor was covered with pieces of hardened metal, as aforesaid, that would roll and prevent plaintiff from retaining a firm footing on said floor, as aforesaid, when defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, that by reason of said dangerous condition, as aforesaid, of said floor the plaintiff would be likely to slip on said floor and would be injured thereby.

"(3) That it was the duty of the defendant to exercise ordinary care to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work, but that defendant neglected its duties in this respect, in that the place in which plaintiff was required to work and was at the time working was dark and insufficiently lighted, making the work dangerous and unsafe, especially with the floor in the aforesaid condition, all of which was known, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have been known, by the defendant, in time, by the exercise of ordinary care to have furnished reasonably sufficient light, or removed said dark condition, prior to and at such time, but that defendant negligently failed to do so.

"(4) That defendant negligently failed and omitted to warn plaintiff of the said dangerous condition of said floor, when by the exercise of ordinary care defendant could have done so and prevented plaintiff's said injuries.

"(5) That defendant negligently and carelessly failed and omitted to inspect said floor and the place in and about which plaintiff was required to work, when defendant by the exercise of ordinary care could have done so and avoided plaintiff's said injuries.

"(6) That defendant negligently and carelessly caused, permitted, and allowed said floor of said plant, at and about where plaintiff was required to work, to be covered with small pieces of hardened metal, or small globules, and metal to harden in said ladle and molten metal to be poured over said hardened metal, thereby making said ladle unusually heavy and deceiving plaintiff as to the weight of said ladle, thereby directly causing plaintiff's said injuries, when defendant by the exercise of ordinary care could have prevented plaintiff's said injuries."

The answer denies generally the allegations of the petition, and charges by way of affirmative defense that the injuries sustained by plaintiff directly resulted from his own negligence, in that he negligently failed to step in a place of safety, and negligently failed to look where he was walking, when by the exercise of ordinary care he could have seen the floor upon which he was walking and any defects there were in the same, and could thereby have avoided any injury to himself.

The reply is a general denial.

The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff's testimony tends to show that he had been working for the defendant as a molder for over a year at the time he was injured; that his work consisted in making molds, and molding castings therein; that he worked on a dirt floor, which was covered with a layer of sand about an inch in thickness; that the sand was loose and moist; that the space within which he worked was about 10 feet wide and 30 feet long;

300 S.W. 1030

that customarily when he came to his work in the morning he began making molds,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Hulsey v. Quarry & Construction Co., No. 28463.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 4, 1930
    ...jury in withdrawing both of the charges of negligence submitted to them by plaintiff's Instruction 4. Komor v. Foundry Co. (Mo. App.), 300 S.W. 1028; Lathem v. Hosch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto. Inc. Co. v. Rys. Co., 200 Mo. App. 317; Kinlen v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 145, 162; Schulz v. Sme......
  • Crossno v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 29592.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 5, 1931
    ...intermingled with other matters properly before the jury. Schulz v. Smercina (Mo. Sup.), 1 S.W. (2d) 119; Komar v. Fdy. Co. (Mo. App.), 300 S.W. 1028; Latham v. Hotsch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto Ins. Co. v. Rys. Co., 200 Mo. App. 317; Kinlen v. Rys. Co., 216 Mo. 162. (d) The record do......
  • Althage v. Motorbus Company, No. 26771.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 3, 1928
    ...because of the reading and giving to the jury of Instruction 13 for defendant. Seithel v. Dairy Co., 300 S.W. 280; Kamar v. Foundry Co., 300 S.W. 1028; Latham v. Hosch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto Ins. Co. v. United Rys. Co., 200 Mo. App. 317. (3) It was error to give Instruction 15. Gl......
  • Mahaney v. Auto Transit Co., No. 29715.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 17, 1932
    ...Railways Co., 206 S.W. 257; Temple v. Envelope Co., 318 Mo. 280; Schulz v. Smercina, 1 S.W. (2d) (Mo. Sup.) 113; Komer v. Foundry Co., 300 S.W. 1028. (4) The court erred in giving, at the request of respondent, Instruction 10, for the reason that such instruction was misleading and confusin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Hulsey v. Quarry & Construction Co., No. 28463.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 4, 1930
    ...jury in withdrawing both of the charges of negligence submitted to them by plaintiff's Instruction 4. Komor v. Foundry Co. (Mo. App.), 300 S.W. 1028; Lathem v. Hosch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto. Inc. Co. v. Rys. Co., 200 Mo. App. 317; Kinlen v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 145, 162; Schulz v. Sme......
  • Crossno v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 29592.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 5, 1931
    ...intermingled with other matters properly before the jury. Schulz v. Smercina (Mo. Sup.), 1 S.W. (2d) 119; Komar v. Fdy. Co. (Mo. App.), 300 S.W. 1028; Latham v. Hotsch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto Ins. Co. v. Rys. Co., 200 Mo. App. 317; Kinlen v. Rys. Co., 216 Mo. 162. (d) The record do......
  • Althage v. Motorbus Company, No. 26771.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 3, 1928
    ...because of the reading and giving to the jury of Instruction 13 for defendant. Seithel v. Dairy Co., 300 S.W. 280; Kamar v. Foundry Co., 300 S.W. 1028; Latham v. Hosch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto Ins. Co. v. United Rys. Co., 200 Mo. App. 317. (3) It was error to give Instruction 15. Gl......
  • Mahaney v. Auto Transit Co., No. 29715.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 17, 1932
    ...Railways Co., 206 S.W. 257; Temple v. Envelope Co., 318 Mo. 280; Schulz v. Smercina, 1 S.W. (2d) (Mo. Sup.) 113; Komer v. Foundry Co., 300 S.W. 1028. (4) The court erred in giving, at the request of respondent, Instruction 10, for the reason that such instruction was misleading and confusin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT