Kull v. Ford Motor Cc., (No. 18536.)

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtNipper
Citation261 S.W. 734
PartiesKULL v. FORD MOTOR CC.
Docket Number(No. 18536.)
Decision Date06 May 1924
261 S.W. 734
KULL
v.
FORD MOTOR CC.
(No. 18536.)
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
May 6, 1924.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William H. Killoren, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Karl E. Kull against the Ford Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Luke B. Hart and Smith & Pearcy, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

[261 S.W. 735]

NIPPER, C.


This is an action for damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff on the 26th of June, 1920, while working in the assembling department of the defendant's factory. The negligence counted upon in the petition is the failure of the defendant to provide lighting facilities sufficient to enable the plaintiff to see clearly and protect himself from fragments chipped or broken from rivets which plaintiff was required to use in the performance of his work for defendant. There was another charge of negligence in the petition, but it is unnecessary to refer to that. The answer was a general denial, and a plea that plaintiff was negligent in continuing to work when he knew or could have known of insufficient lighting facilities, if such were insufficient. The reply was a general denial. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff was working on the fifth floor of the defendant's factory at the time he was injured. He had worked for this defendant for about four years prior to the time he received his injury. At the time he was injured he was engaged in riveting together parts of bodies of automobiles. He was working at a bench which was located about 20 feet east of the west wall, and 60 feet south of the north wall of the building. This bench at which he was working was about 3 feet long, and 1 or 1½ feet wide. There was what is known as a heel board resting on the steel top of the bench, and rivets were placed through the heel board, and protruded through about one-eighth of an inch. The head of the rivet rested on the bench. With his left hand plaintiff held an upright side piece, and with his right hand he held a small hammer, with which he struck the rivets. At the time plaintiff was injured he had placed three rivets through the holes, and had already riveted one of them. While striking the top of the rivet nearest the upright piece, which he held in his left hand, a small piece of the rivet flew up and struck him in the eye, causing an almost total loss of the sight. In striking this rivet with the hammer, in order that he would not strike the upright piece, which he held in his left hand, he would tilt the hammer at an angle and strike down and slightly inward, or what might be termed a slanting blow. The plaintiff describes it as a glancing blow which he struck, but an examination of his testimony, we think, reveals the fact that he means a slanting blow, or a blow with the hammer at an angle, instead of straight down.

The room in which plaintiff was working had been provided with natural light, but at that time parts of automobile bodies were piled almost to the top of the room, or within about a foot of the ceiling, and almost entirely cut off the natural light from the windows of the building. On another side of the room there was a pile of stock extending about 7 feet high, and on another side a pile of body stock about the same height. There was a rectangular space in this room. There was a cluster for lights on the ceiling, which was about 14 feet high; in fact, there were two clusters. But these clusters had only one globe each. Plaintiff testified that he could see the rivet, but could not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...can be submitted to you as a question of fact for the jury to be passed... ." McGowan v. Wells, 24 S.W. (2d) 633; Kull v. Ford Motor Co., 261 S.W. 734. (13) Because respondent's counsel's argument was a viciously unfair attack upon his own witnesses, which created an "atmosphere of hostilit......
  • McGowan v. Wells, No. 27620.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1930
    ...of Cameron, 213 Mo. 350, 369, 371, 111 S.W. 1139, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 320, 127 Am. St. 606, and Kull v. Ford Motor Co. (St. L. Ct. App.), 261 S.W. 734, In the former case counsel for respondent in closing argument said to the jury: "You gentlemen notice that for the last few days Mr. Ellis (of......
  • Finkle v. Western Auto. Ins. Co. et al., No. 20960.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 8, 1930
    ...9 S.W. (2d) 541; Courter v. Chase & Sons (Mo. App.), 299 S.W. 622; Meyer v. Wells (Mo. App.), 277 S.W. 585; Kull v. Ford (Mo. App.), 261 S.W. 734; Franklin v. K.C., 213 Mo. App. 154, 248 S.W. 616; Williams v. Taxicab Co. (Mo. App.), 241 S.W. 970. (3) Appellate courts should intervene where ......
  • O'Gorman v. Kansas City, Mo., No. 18526.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 6, 1936
    ...31 S.W. (2d) 105; Jackman v. Railway Company (Mo. App.), 206 S.W. 244; Mahner v. Linck, 70 Mo. App. 380; Kull v. Motor Company (Mo. App.), 261 S.W. 734; O'Hara v. Construction Company (Mo. App.), 197 S.W. REYNOLDS, J. This is an action for personal injuries by Katherine O'Gorman, who was at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 3, 1944
    ...can be submitted to you as a question of fact for the jury to be passed... ." McGowan v. Wells, 24 S.W. (2d) 633; Kull v. Ford Motor Co., 261 S.W. 734. (13) Because respondent's counsel's argument was a viciously unfair attack upon his own witnesses, which created an "atmosphere of hostilit......
  • McGowan v. Wells, No. 27620.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1930
    ...of Cameron, 213 Mo. 350, 369, 371, 111 S.W. 1139, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 320, 127 Am. St. 606, and Kull v. Ford Motor Co. (St. L. Ct. App.), 261 S.W. 734, In the former case counsel for respondent in closing argument said to the jury: "You gentlemen notice that for the last few days Mr. Ellis (of......
  • Finkle v. Western Auto. Ins. Co. et al., No. 20960.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 8, 1930
    ...9 S.W. (2d) 541; Courter v. Chase & Sons (Mo. App.), 299 S.W. 622; Meyer v. Wells (Mo. App.), 277 S.W. 585; Kull v. Ford (Mo. App.), 261 S.W. 734; Franklin v. K.C., 213 Mo. App. 154, 248 S.W. 616; Williams v. Taxicab Co. (Mo. App.), 241 S.W. 970. (3) Appellate courts should intervene where ......
  • O'Gorman v. Kansas City, Mo., No. 18526.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 6, 1936
    ...31 S.W. (2d) 105; Jackman v. Railway Company (Mo. App.), 206 S.W. 244; Mahner v. Linck, 70 Mo. App. 380; Kull v. Motor Company (Mo. App.), 261 S.W. 734; O'Hara v. Construction Company (Mo. App.), 197 S.W. REYNOLDS, J. This is an action for personal injuries by Katherine O'Gorman, who was at......
  • 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