Marach v. Columbia Box Co.
| Citation | 179 F. 412 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1910 |
| Docket Number | 5,824. |
| Parties | MARACH v. COLUMBIA BOX CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
John C Robertson, for plaintiff.
Watts Williams & Dines and Wm. R. Gentry, for defendants.
The motion to remand in this case is based upon the proposition that the controversy is not wholly between citizens of different states. This raises the question as to whether the plaintiff has a joint cause of action against the two defendants. This must be determined by the averments in the plaintiff's petition.
The plaintiff is the widow of the deceased, who came to his death, it is alleged, by the negligence of the box company in failing to provide a reasonably safe place for the deceased to work in; that it 'provided a short platform consisting of boards placed upon girders; that said platform is about one foot or more wide and about six feet long; that said boards were on the day aforesaid not properly fastened and said platform was wholly unguarded with a rail or fence, or anything whatever, for the protection of the person standing and working thereon'; that the box company was further negligent in failing to provide its system of 'blowpipes' with proper and reasonably safe 'shut-offs,' and in providing a stick that was short and of rotten material, and not a reasonably safe appliance, and in maintaining and operating a system of 'blowpipes' that were not safe, and the system was old, inadequate, and unsafe. The petition states that on the 28th day of July, 1909, the plaintiff was at work in a reasonably safe place in said factory, and that he was ordered and directed by the foreman of the defendant to go into the shavings pit and open up the pipes etc., and that such were not his usual and ordinary duties in and about said factory; that while performing the work directed to him, and while standing upon said platform and using the stick so provided by defendant, and while standing upon said platform, which was on said day covered with shavings, the deceased fell from said platform by reason of its unguarded and unfenced condition, and by reason of his unsteady foundation on said platform, into the pit and lost his life.
It clearly appears from this petition that the plaintiff lost his life by falling from a platform which was unsafe for the purposes for which it was used, and that this platform had been erected there by the box company. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durst v. Southern Ry. Co.
...Railroad Co. (C. C.) 131 F. 985; Evansberg v. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 168 F. 1001; Adderson v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 177 F. 571; Marach v. Columbia Box Co. (C. C.) 179 F. 412; Bainbridge Grocery Co. v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) F. 276; Cayce v. Railroad Co. (D. C.) 195 F. 786; Nichols v. Railroad Co., 1......
-
Durst v. Southern Ry. Co
...C.) 131 F. 985; Evansberg v. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 168 F. 1001; Adderson v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 177 F. 571; Marach v. Columbia Box Co. (C. C.) 179 F. 412; Bainbridge Grocery Co. v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 182 F. 276; Cayce v. Railroad Co. (D. C.) 195 F. 786; Nichols v. Railroad Co., 195 F. 913, 11......
-
McAllister v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
......Toledo R.R. Co. (C.C.) 138 F. 169; Chicago R.R. Co. v. Stepp. (C.C.) 151 F. 908; Lockard v. St. Louis R.R. co. (C.C.) 167 F. 675; Marach v. Columbia Box Co. (C.C.) 179 F. 412; Floyt v. Shenango Furnace Co. (C.C.) 186 F. 539. . . These. cases are all personal injury ......
-
Clark v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
...... other defendant if the proper diversity of citizenship exists. between that defendant and the plaintiff. Marach v. Columbia Box Co. (C.C.) 179 F. 412; Lockard v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co. (C.C.) 167 F. 675;. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. ......