Masonite Corp. v. Scruggs

• Decision Date: 24 February 1947
• Docket Number: 36348.
• Citation: 29 So.2d 262,201 Miss. 722
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MASONITE CORPORATION v. SCRUGGS.

29 So.2d 262

201 Miss. 722

MASONITE CORPORATION v. SCRUGGS.

No. 36348.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 24, 1947

Welch and Cooper, of Laurel, for appellant.

L. V. Melvin and Jeff Collins, both of Laurel, for appellee.

ROBERDS Justice.

Scruggs brought an action at law against Masonite Corporation to recover money damage for personal injuries allegedly suffered by Scruggs as a result of the failure of Masonite to fulfill its duty to Scruggs as an employee as hereinafter set out in the declaration. He recovered a judgment for three thousand dollars and Masonite appeals.

The main contention of appellant on this appeal is that the proof shows no liability against it and that its request for a peremptory instruction should have been granted by the trial court. We will deal only with that question.

The declaration alleged that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Masonite boards and in such manufacture used chemicals, the nature and extent of which plaintiff did not know; '* * * and the defendant did not inform him, and did not notify him that they were using any chemicals in the manufacture of the boards, and put him to handling said Masonite board while it was wet and dripping with water which was negligence and carelessness, and by the exercise of reasonable care the defendant would have known that the plaintiff's hands would be poisoned and damaged, and he would be seriously injured * * *', and that as a result of handling the wet boards his hands and body became 'infected or poisoned with said chemical and broke out with sores over his hands and arms and his face and body * * *.' Defendant plead the general issue.

The proof of the plaintiff shows that the finished boards are from one-eighth to one-fourth inch in width and twelve to sixteen feet long. That in the process of manufacture they reach a machine called the spray rack. The boards are placed upon this rack. Under this rack is a vat supposedly containing water. The boards are washed, or sprayed, on the under-side by means of a wire brush revolving in this water throwing the water against the boards. After working a short time in other departments Scruggs was put to work at this spray rack. It was the duty of appellee, and his co-workers, to place the wet sides of these boards together after they had been sprayed and send them on their way to the warehouse. In thus placing the boards together the hands of the employees became, and remained, wet. After working at this rack three or four weeks appellee's hands became infected, or diseased, caused, as he claims, by handling these boards, and his neck and face also became infected by his hands coming in contact with them, as a result of which he suffered much pain and considerable expense. The water in this vat, after its use as a spray, drains from the vat through a closed pipe, emptying outside the building. Sometime subsequent to the injury appellee, through a nephew obtained at the end of this drain-pipe a sample of this discharged water, and sent it for examination to the State Chemist at Mississippi State College. The analysis disclosed that this discharged water contained two-tenths of one percent phenol or carbolic acid. In other words, there was one part phenol to four hundred and ninety-nine parts water.

Scruggs informed Masonite of his trouble. He went to a number of doctors, including the regular doctor for Masonite. He used only one of these, Doctor J. W. Stringer, as a witness. As to the nature of the trouble, Dr. Stringer testified that the eruption had the appearance of smallpox, except the pustules were a little smaller; that the hands were covered with blisters. But he frankly stated he did not know what it was. 'It was something new to me.' As to the cause of it he said, 'Looked like it might have been a chemical, just to look at it.' However, he did not undertake to state what did cause it. He also said that the foregoing percentage of phenol and water was a very diluted solution; that phenol was a fine antiseptic--a germicide--in proper solution and that he used it for that purpose in his office; that it was used to counteract infection; that it might be used to a strength of four percent without harm; that if it caused harm the injury would be a burn and not an infection. In fact, he said that two-tenths of one percent phenol might be used in the eye without injury, but he thought the lining of the stomach more delicate than the eye. He also said there were many different kinds of skin diseases and that the causes were as varied as the diseases.

Appellee...