Komor v. Liberty Foundry Co.

Decision Date10 January 1928
Docket NumberNo. 19727.,19727.
Citation300 S.W. 1028
PartiesKOMOR v. LIBERTY FOUNDRY CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

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 that customarily when he came to his work in the morning he began making molds, and continued at this work until about 3 o'clock in the afternoon; that he would then fill the molds with molten metal; that the molten metal was brought to his place of work in a large ladle; that he used a small hand ladle in transferring the molten metal from the large ladle to the molds; that the hand ladle held about a gallon of metal, and when filled the ladle with the metal in it weighed about 100 pounds; that the metal was poured from the large ladle into the hand ladle; that when the hand ladle was filled, plaintiff would grasp the handle of the ladle with his right hand nearest the ladle and with his left hand at the outer end of the handle, and thus carry the metal to the molds, and pour it from the hand ladle into the molds; that the handle to the hand ladle was about 4 feet long and was fixed to the ladle in a horizontal position; that in the process of molding, steam was generated, so that the place where he worked became dark on account of the steam; that in pouring the metal from the large ladle into the hand ladle, and in transferring the metal to the molds, the metal would sometimes overflow, or splash out of the hand ladle onto the floor; that the metal thus falling on the floor would cool in the form of globules or marbles, which would become buried in the sand; that the ground underneath the sand was hard, so that the globules would not sink into the ground, but would roll on the ground when stepped on; that the defendant, through servants employed for that purpose, customarily cleaned the floor where plaintiff worked, at intervals of once a week to once a month; that on these occasions the sand was run through a sieve, so that the globules were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Hulsey v. Quarry & Construction Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 4, 1930
    ... ... 239, 68 L. Ed. 284; Walter v. Cement Co. (Mo.), 250 S.W. 587; Johnson v. Foundry Co. (Mo.), 259 S.W. 442; Choka v. Power Co., 303 Mo. 132. (d) The instruction does not assume ... Komor v. Foundry Co. (Mo. App.), 300 S.W. 1028; Lathem v. Hosch, 207 Mo. App. 381; American Auto. Inc ... Q. Had he ever told you two men were enough before? A. No, sir. Q. You had always been at liberty to call on each other when you needed help? A. Yes, sir. Q. And while you had worked there from ... ...
  • Hulsey v. Tower Grove Quarry & Construction Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 4, 1930
    ... ... 63 U.S. 239, 68 L.Ed. 284; Walter v. Cement Co ... (Mo.), 250 S.W. 587; Johnson v. Foundry Co ... (Mo.), 259 S.W. 442; Choka v. Power Co., 303 ... Mo. 132. (d) The instruction does not ... 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 ... ever told you two men were enough before? A. No, sir. Q. You ... had always been at liberty to call on each other when you ... needed help? A. Yes, sir. Q. And while you had worked there ... ...
  • Schwartz v. S. S. Kresge Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • December 4, 1944
    ... ... National Biscuit Co., 3 ... S.W.2d 254; Wood v. Walgreen Drug Stores, 125 S.W.2d ... 534; Komor v. Liberty Foundry Co., 300 S.W. 1028 ... (b) Defendants breached their duty to plaintiff ... ...
  • Jacob v. Peerless White Lime Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 21, 1931
    ... ... withdrawn in doubt, or intermingled with other matters ... properly in the case. Komor v. Foundry Co. (Mo ... App.), 300 S.W. 1028; Latham v. Hosch, 207 ... Mo.App. 381; American ... ...
  • 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