Milburn v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1932
• Citation: 56 S.W.2d 80,331 Mo. 1171
• Parties: John Milburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

56 S.W.2d 80

331 Mo. 1171

John Milburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 31, 1932

Rehearing Overruled October 22, 1932.

Motion to Transfer to Court en Banc Overruled December 31, 1932.

Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court; Hon. A. G. Knight, Judge Opinion filed at April Term, 1932, September 3, 1932; motion for rehearing filed; motion overruled October 22, 1932 motion to transfer to court en banc filed; motion overruled at October Term, December 31, 1932.

Affirmed.

Morrison, Nugent, Wylder & Berger for appellant.

(1) The verdict and judgment are against the law and the evidence, and should have been in favor of the defendant instead of the plaintiff. (a) The plaintiff (respondent) was not at the time of his injury engaged in work coming within the scope of his employment by the defendant (appellant). Excelsior Products Mfg. Co. v. K. C. So. Ry. Co., 263 Mo. 142, 172 S.W. 359; Elliott v. Payne, 293 Mo. 596; Stagg v. Tea and Spice Co., 169 Mo. 498; Barry v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 98 Mo. 70; Associated Employers Reciprocal v. Simmons, 273 S.W. 686; Daly v. Bates and Roberts, 224 N.Y. 126, 120 N.E. 118; Rigley v. Wabash Ry. Co., 204 S.W. 737. (b) The plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was not engaged in work directly connected with interstate commerce; and hence plaintiff could not bring his case within the purview of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, which constituted the sole basis upon which the cause was submitted to the jury. Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 61 L.Ed. 319; Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177, 60 L.Ed. 941; Industrial Accident Comm. v. Davis, 259 U.S. 182, 66 L.Ed. 888; Pryor v. Bishop, 234 F. 9; Bishop v. Delano, 265 F. 263; Bumpstead v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 99 Kan. 589; Delaware, L. & W. Railroad Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439, 59 L.Ed. 1397; Hanson v. N. Y. Central & H. Railroad Co., 91 N. J. L. 197, 103 A. 200; Meyers v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 78 S.E. 280; Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co. v. Myer, 110 So. 444, 26 N. C. C. A. 117; Smith v. C. M. St. P. Ry. Co., 157 Minn. 60, 195 N.W. 534. (c) Because plaintiff at the time of his injury was acting neither within the scope of his employment nor within the sphere of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the demurrer to the evidence offered by the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case should have been sustained. Crow v. Houck's Mo. & Ark. Ry. Co., 212 Mo. 589; Henson v. Kansas City, 210 S.W. 13; Hunt v. St. Louis, 211 S.W. 673; Oliver v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 211 S.W. 699. (2) The court erred in giving, over the objections and exceptions of this defendant, Instruction 1 asked by the plaintiff. White v. Lowenberg, 55 Mo.App. 69; Lloyd v. Meservey, 129 Mo.App. 636. (3) The court erred in giving, over the objections and exceptions of this defendant, Instruction 2 asked by the plaintiff. (4) The court erred in giving, over the objections and exceptions of this defendant, Instruction 3 asked by the plaintiff. Miller v. Busey, 186 S.W. 985; Welty v. S. H. Kress & Co., 295 S.W. 503; Gunn v. Hemphill Lumber Co., 218 S.W. 981; Harrison v. Am. Car & Foundry Co., 254 S.W. 560; Crow v. Houck's Mo. & Ark. Ry. Co., 212 Mo. 589; Henson v. Kansas City, 210 S.W. 13; Hunt v. St. Louis, 211 S.W. 673; Oliver v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 211 S.W. 699. (5) The verdict is excessive, and is so excessive as to show that it is the result of bias and prejudice on the part of the jury. Rigg v. Chicago B. & Q. Railroad Co., 212 S.W. 878; Dominick v. Western Coal & Mining Co., 255 Mo. 463, 164 S.W. 567.

Platt Hubbell and Geo. H. Hubbell for respondent.

(1) Defendant negligently injured plaintiff Milburn by and through the negligence of general foreman Ernest Thompson in negligently failing to give notice to the whole crew, that gasoline had been put into the kerosene barrel, and in his negligently failing to cause the supply of kerosene to be put into the blanket car and to give notice to the whole crew of bunk car men of such location of the kerosene to be used by them. C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Russo, 163 N.E. 286 certiorari denied, 282 U.S. 846, 51 S.Ct. 25, 75 L.Ed. 750; Chambers v. Chester, 172 Mo. 485; 3 Labatt's M. & S. (2 Ed.) p. 2755; 3 Shear. & Red. on Neg. (6 Ed.) pp. 1799, 1800; Darks v. Scudders-Gale Groc. Co., 130 S.W. 430; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Davis, 60 S.W. 457, 24 Tex.App. 508; Kearse v. Seyb, 200 Mo.App. 650, 209 S.W. 635; Ky. Indep. Oil Co. v. Schnitzler, 39 A. L. R. 984; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 53 L.Ed. 463, 212 U.S. 159, 29 S.Ct. 270, 89 P. 212, 18 Okla. 107; Ellis v. Republic Oil Co., 110 N.W. 20, 133 Iowa 11; Landcaster v. Natl. Enam. & Stamp. Co., 1 S.W.2d 238; Gettys v. Am. Car & Fdry. Co., 16 S.W.2d 88; Koerner v. St. L. Car Co., 209 Mo. 157; Bender v. Kroger Groc. & Bak. Co., 310 Mo. 488; Johnson v. Brick & Coal Co., 276 Mo. 42; Enloe v. Car & Foundry Co., 240 Mo. 443; 1 Sherman & Red. (6 Ed.) sec. 188, p. 453; 4 Thompson on Neg. p. 281, sec. 4056; Prescott v. Black & Gay, 99 A. 372; Yeager v. Anthra. Brew. Co., 102 A. 419; Atkins v. Torson, 12 S.W.2d 930; 1 Sher. & Red. (6 Ed.) sec. 186; Gibson Oil Co. v. Bush, 1 S.W.2d 93; 12 Amer. & Eng. Encyc. of L. (2 Ed.) p. 504; 20 R. C. L. pp. 102, 103, sec. 89; 4 Labatt's M. & S. (2 Ed.) 4784, 4785; Applegate v. Q. O. & K. C., 252 Mo. 198, 158 S.W. 376; Sorensen v. Selden-Breck Const. Co., 154 N.W. 223, 98 Neb. 689; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Mahoney's Admx., 156 S.W. 391; L. R. A. 1918C, p. 385, note; Holman v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 278 S.W. 1008. (2) Defendant railroad company is a common carrier being a railroad engaging in commerce between the states, and, plaintiff Milburn was negligently injured while he was "employed by such carrier in such commerce." Title 45 U.S.C. A. sec. 51, p. 92; Brock v. Ry. Co., 305 Mo. 523, 266 S.W. 691, 36 A. L. R. 891, 69 L.Ed. 479; N. W. U. Packet Co. v. McCue, 21 L.Ed. 707, 17 Wall. 705; C. M. St. P. & P. Railroad Co. v. Kane, 33 F.2d 868, certiorari denied, 74 L.Ed. 637, 50 S.Ct. 37, 280 U.S. 588; Phil. B. & W. Railroad Co. v. Smith, 39 S.Ct. 397, 250 U.S. 101, 63 L.Ed. 869; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. United States, 34 S.Ct. 27, 231 U.S. 112, 58 L.Ed. 144; Harvey v. Tex. & P. Ry. Co., 166 F. 398, 184 F. 990, 33 S.Ct. 518, 228 U.S. 319, 57 L.Ed. 852; Yarde v. Hines, 209 Mo.App. 547, 238 S.W. 151, 24 A. L. R. 643. (3) Plaintiff Milburn is entitled to recover under the common law of Iowa as adopted and modified by the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act, if he is not entitled to recover under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The injury of plaintiff Milburn arose out of and in the course of the employment. 1927 Code of Iowa, pp. 222, 223, secs. 1375, 1379; sec. 1365, p. 221; 1 R. S. Mo., pp. 354, 400; 1927 Code of Iowa, pp. 229, 230; Papinaw v. Gr. T. Ry. Co., 155 N.W. 548; St. L. A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Welch, 10 S.W. 532, 72 Tex. 298, 2 L. R. A. 839; Int. & G. N. Railroad Co. v. Ryan, 18 S.W. 221; Moore v. Ry. Co., 142 N.W. 154; Muller v. Oakes Mfg. Co., 99 N.Y.S. 924; 4 Labatt's M. & S. (2 Ed.) p. 4695; Sanders v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 81 S.E. 283, 97 S.C. 50; Moyse v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 108 P. 1064, L. R. A. 1916D, 1016, note; Taylor v. Hogan Mill. Co., 66 A. L. R. 755; Thomas v. Proctor & Gamb. Mfg. Co., 6 A. L. R. 1151, 104 Kan. 432, 179 P. 372; Cudahy Pckg. Co. v. Parramore, 68 L.Ed. 370, 263 U.S. 418, 44 S.Ct. 153; 1927 Code of Iowa, p. 44; Hawkins v. Bleakly, 37 S.Ct. 255, 243 U.S. 210, 61 L.Ed. 678, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1637; 1 Schneider on Work. Comp. Law (2 Ed.) p. 745; Larson v. Ind. Acc. Comm., 224 P. 746, 193 Cal. 406; Wahlig v. Krenning-Schlapp Groc. Co., 29 S.W.2d 130; Leilich v. Chev. Motor Co., 40 S.W.2d 605; Shout v. Gunite Con. & Const. Co., 41 S.W.2d 631; Conklin v. K. Pub. Serv. Co., 41 S.W.2d 614; 6 Current Dig. 1931, p. 1148; Guastelo v. Mich. C. Railroad Co., 1917D, 71, 56 A. L. R. 510, 514, note; Terlecki v. Strauss, 4 N. C. C. A. 585, 85 N. J. L. 454, 89 A. 1023, 92 A. 1087; Holt Lbr. Co. v. Indust. Comm., 170 N.W. 367, 168 Wis. 381; State v. Dist. Ct., 169 N.W. 275, 141 Minn. 61; Grant v. Fleming Bros. Co., 176 N.W. 642, 188 Iowa 637; Mitchell v. Swanwood Coal Co., 166 N.W. 396, 182 Iowa 1001; Mitchell v. Mystic Coal Co., 179 N.W. 432, 189 Iowa 1018; Gay v. Hocking Coal Co., 169 N.W. 364, 184 Iowa 949. (4) By proving the facts mentioned in the plaintiff's instructions numbered two and three, and by proving the facts mentioned in evidence, the plaintiff placed his case within the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act. 1927 Code of Iowa, pp. 222, 223; Davis v. McColl, 179 Mo.App. 207, 166 S.W. 1113; Slaughter v. Railroad, 116 Mo. 277; O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 400; State of Iowa v. Twogood, 7 Iowa, 254; Boyce v. Burleigh, 199 N.W. 787; Kyle v. Greene High School, 226 N.W. 71, 208 Iowa 1016; Bushing v. Iowa Ry. & Light Co., 226 N.W. 719, 208 Iowa 1039. (5) In view of the facts proved by the evidence, submitted to the jury in the instructions and found to be true by the jury, the plaintiff is entitled to have this judgment affirmed under the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act which adopted the common law of Iowa, regardless of the question of interstate commerce. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Gray, 35 S.Ct. 621, 237 U.S. 399, 59 L.Ed. 1018, 142 N.W. 505, 153 Wis. 637; Kansas City W. Railroad Co. v. McAdow, 36 S.Ct. 254, 240 U.S. 51, 60 L.Ed. 520, 192 Mo.App. 540; Wab. Railroad Co. v. Hayes, 34 S.Ct. 730, 234 U.S. 86, 58 L.Ed. 1226; Wolfe v. Payne, 294 Mo. 186, 44 S.Ct. 64, 263 U.S. 239, 68 L.Ed. 284, 241 S.W. 915. (6) The verdict of the jury is not excessive. Murphy v. Ludowici Gas & Oil Co., 11 Neg. & C. C. A. 576, 96 Kan. 321, 150 P. 581; Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Chambers, 279 S.W. 291; Ky. Dist. & Ware Co. v. Wells, 148 S.W. 380, 149 Ky. 275; Bilton v. So....