Morris v. Wagner

• Decision Date: 06 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 17174.,17174.
• Parties: MORRIS v. WAGNER ELECTRIC MFG. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

243 S.W. 424

MORRIS v. WAGNER ELECTRIC MFG. CO.

No. 17174.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 6, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses Hartmann, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Harry Morris against the Wagner Electric Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Charles A. Routs and Thos. J. Cole, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

William H. Bartley, W. H. Douglass, and Waldo C. Mayfield, all of St. Louis; for respondent.

NIPPER, C.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while working in defendant's manufacturing establishment, by being struck in the eye by a piece of iron or steel broken from the end of a shell or from a chisel. Plaintiff recovered judgment for $2,500, and defendant appeals.

The petition alleges that on or about the 15th day of August, 1918, plaintiff was employed by defendant, and his duties were to smooth off the rough edges of shells, and in order to do this he was instructed to place a shell on a rapidly revolving machine, and to place two chisels or other tools provided for that purpose against the end of a shell to cut or smooth off the rough edges; that In doing this work small particles or bits of steel would constantly fly off the ends of said shells by being cut or broken off by these chisels or tools held against the shells; that at times the tools or chisels used for cutting the shells would get hot from the contact with the rapidly revolving shells, and it was frequently necessary for plaintiff to hold his face near to and in close proximity to the cutting tools while being operated, in order that he might observe the manner of the cutting, and to see that the tools did not get too hot; that while so engaged in the performance of his duties, a piece of iron or steel cut or broken from the ends of one of said shells or from the chisels or cutting tools flew off and struck him in the left eye, permanently impairing the sight. The petition further alleges that the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work and reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to do his work, in that defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, that plaintiff was inexperienced, and failed to warn him and instruct him of the dangers incident to his work. The petition also counts upon the failure of defendant to guard the machinery as required by section 7828, R. S. 1909; and the further charge of negligence in failing to furnish plaintiff with goggles to protect his eyes; also that the defendant negligently instructed and required plaintiff to stoop over so his face and eyes would be near the end of said shells when the cutting tools or chisels were held against them. The answer was a general denial.

Plaintiff was 28 years old at the time of the alleged injury. He entered the employ of the defendant about the 1st of June, 1918, and continued in its employ until December of the same year. He worked in the department in which the defendant was manufacturing six-inch shells for the navy. These shells were made of hardened steel. Prior to working for the defendant he had worked as a bell boy at hotels. When he was first employed be worked until the latter part of July in what was called the "grinding room," and was then transferred to the machine shop, and worked there under an instructor for about two weeks, after which time he began operating one of these machines alone. In describing how the work was done, we quote plaintiff's testimony as follows:

"These shells come in about that length (indicating). They were supposed to be cut down to the desired length. You shoved the shell on the machine; the machine had a spindle; you shoved the shell on the spindle, and then tightened up that way,(illustrating). The shell was held on the machine by air; then there was two knives on the end of the shell, set like that (illustrating); and then you set off the machine and you wound these knives up until they just touched the shell, and you lifted up your clamp, and you let the knife cut away in there while the shell was revolving. Now, at times you get a hard shell on there; you would have to watch it pretty close, because if you don't the thing would cut slanting; it would not cut straight. And the inspector, if you threw that back on the platform, the inspectors would throw them back again and tell you to cut them right. It was while I was cutting a shell that a piece—I looked down there and something flew up and struck me in the eye. I figure it was a piece of steel."

The latter part of the answer with respect to what plaintiff "figured" was, upon motion, stricken out. Plaintiff then states that after he was struck by something in the eye he examined the cutting tool, and when he took it out it was burned; the shell had burned the cutting tool. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff discloses that while this machinery was in operation, and the cutting operations going on, small particles from the shells constantly flew off. After plaintiff had been working with his instructor for two weeks, the instructor went home, and the foreman directed plaintiff to operate the machine; and it was on this day he received his injury. He testified the foreman didn't tell him anything about the machine being dangerous, nor give him any instructions in regard to it. From the evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses, it appears that there was no guard or screen to protect the eyes or face from the particles of steel which flew from the machine, and that a guard could have been placed on same without interfering with its operation. Plaintiff testified he was furnished no goggles for his eyes in this department, although he had been furnished with goggles when he worked in the grinding room. After he was injured he went to the hospital maintained by the company on the premises. The doctor was not there. The nurse in attendance at the hospital put some black fluid in his eye, and he went home. The next morning he could not open his eye. After a couple of days he returned to his work, and says his eye "felt pretty good." It soon began to hurt him again, and he went back to the same hospital, and Dr. Nicks took something out of his eye; but plaintiff did not know what it was. He fixes the date of his injury at near the middle of August, 1918. He noticed nothing more unusual about his eye until April, 1919, when he began to notice his vision was blurred. He was then examined by two eye specialists, and X-rays were taken to see if there was anything in the eye, but nothing was disclosed. At the time of the trial plaintiff could only discern a bright light out of the left eye. He had never had any trouble with...