Longree v. Jackes-Evans Manufacturing Co.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1906 |
| Citation | 97 S.W. 272,120 Mo.App. 478 |
| Parties | LONGREE, by His Next Friend, Respondent, v. JACKES-EVANS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Jesse A. McDonald Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
STATEMENT.--Plaintiff was hurt in an accident in defendant's factory on August 26, 1904, and seeks compensation for the injury. The products of the factory were well buckets and stove pipes. Separate gangs of men commonly worked in the making of those articles but the men alternated to some extent between the gangs. Plaintiff was about a month over fifteen years of age at the time of the accident and had been in defendant's employ a year or more. His usual duty was putting screws in the bottoms of well buckets, but occasionally he worked with the stove pipe gang and had been doing the latter work three weeks prior to the accident. He was perfectly familiar with that work. His work on the stove pipes was to "notch" them on the notching machine. The sheets of iron out of which the pipes were made were first cut the proper size at a cutting machine in the same room with the notching machine. The men at the cutting machine, after cutting the sheets of iron, would pile them on top of a truck and it was part of plaintiff's duty, with the help of another hand or two, to roll this truck with the sheets of iron on it, over to the notching machine, which was about the same height as the truck, and then notch the sheets. The trucks in use were about thirty-two inches high with tops twenty-six by twenty-seven and three-fourths inches. The construction of the trucks is as follows: four upright standards of massive size running on castors, with crosspieces at the top and foot, constitute its frame, except that there is another crosspiece extending diagonally from the base to the top on either of the four sides. The top is a flat board, or several boards, covered with a sheet of zinc, the general appearance of the appliance being that of a strongly built but rough, table, moving on castors. These castors are each two inches in diameter and there are two of them at either of the four corners of the truck. They are set on crooked stems or shanks running upward into sockets in the foot of the legs or standards of the truck. The testimony for the plaintiff goes to show that the distance between the castors across the front and rear of the truck is only nineteen and one-half inches and between those along the two sides only twenty and one-half inches, while the framework of the truck which rests on the castors is, as said, about twenty-six by twenty-seven and three-fourths inches. The pieces of sheet iron loaded on the truck to be moved from the cutting machine to the notching machine, were about the size of the top of the truck and weighed about one pound each. The evidence conflicts as to how many were put on for a load. The testimony for plaintiff shows that sometimes three hundred were and that about that many were on the truck when plaintiff was hurt; that is to say, three hundred pounds, piled a foot above the top of the truck. These sheets of iron were oiled before cutting in order to keep them from rusting. Plaintiff's testimony is that usually he and another boy would roll one of the trucks from one machine to the other, but that occasionally the load was too heavy for them and then they would call to their help another hand who worked in the room, who would push while they pulled the truck. The testimony goes to show that the floor of the room was somewhat rough, with knot holes in it. One of these holes was in the path over which plaintiff was moving the loaded truck at the time of his injury. It was one and a quarter inches in diameter. Some evidence for the defendant tends to show it had been covered with a piece of zinc or other metal prior to the accident, but there was contradictory testimony on that question, as witnesses for the plaintiff swore it was not covered until after the accident. While plaintiff and the two other hands were rolling a truck loaded with heavy sheet iron, it suddenly gave a lurch or jostle and the sheets of iron, slipped off, falling on plaintiff, knocking him down and hurting both his arms, particularly the right one. This arm had several deep gashes cut in it, the muscles and tendons being severed, causing a partial loss of control of the thumb and one of the fingers. That is to say, the thumb could not be rotated or the finger straightened. He was laid up until the latter part of September, his wages meanwhile being paid by the defendant. In September he resumed work but quit the following March and instituted this action for damages. As to just how the accident occurred, according to plaintiff's theory will appear from certain excerpts from the testimony of the witnesses.
George Roesler testified as follows:
C. D. Francis, who inspected the premises later, made the following statement:
John Koenig testified as follows:
Plaintiff's testimony was as follows:
Oscar Roesler testified:
George Roesler testified:
John Helfrich testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial