Muesenfechter v. St. Louis Car Co.
| Decision Date | 07 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 25446.,25446. |
| Citation | 139 S.W.2d 1102 |
| Parties | MUESENFECHTER et al. v. ST. LOUIS CAR CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Frank C. O'Malley, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Anna E. Muesenfechter, widow, and Annetta, Gerald, and Robert Muesenfechter, minor children, of Aloysius Muesenfechter, deceased employee, opposed by the St. Louis Car Company, employer and self-insurer. From a judgment reversing an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in favor of the widow and minor children, the widow and minor children appeal.
Affirmed.
Edward C. Friedewald, Albert I. Graff, and Thomas L. Sullivan, all of St. Louis, for appellants.
Lehmann & Lehmann and Watts & Gentry, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis reversing an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission in favor of an employee's dependents. It was claimed that the death of the employee, Aloysius Muesenfechter, was the result of a heat stroke or heat exhaustion brought about by the conditions under which he worked.
The claim was heard before a member of the Commission at the same time as the case of Wessel v. St. Louis Car Company, which case finally reached this Court and was determined on February 6, 1940, and appears in 136 S.W.2d 388. This case has been referred to as a companion case to the Wessel case; however, it is not a companion case in the sense of the facts being the same; they are materially and substantially different, and the decision in the Wessel case, except as to principles of law involved, has little or no bearing on this case.
Respondent concedes that correct rules of law are announced by appellant in the first five points presented, which are: (1) That heat exhaustion or prostration is an accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act, Mo.St.Ann. § 3299 et seq., p. 8229 et seq.; (2) that the same arises out of the employment when the employee is exposed to a greater hazard, or degree of heat than that faced by the general public; (3) that the findings of the Commission, in the absence of fraud, are final and conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence; (4) that in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the Commission's finding, the court will look only to the evidence which is most favorable, adding thereto all reasonable inferences of fact to be drawn therefrom, and will disregard all opposing evidence, as is done in passing on a demurrer to the evidence in ordinary civil actions; and (5) that the weight and credibility of witnesses are questions solely for the Commission.
Therefore, there being no dispute as to the law, the determination of the case depends on the facts, as to whether there was competent substantial evidence to support the award of the Commission.
The employee, Aloysius Muesenfechter, was an electrical worker, engaged in connecting electrical appliances under cars in the course of construction. His duties required him to work under the trucks or the cars, which would be placed over a pit about three feet deep and 15 to 30 feet long in which the employee stood to do his work. There was no question as to the shop being sufficiently provided with windows, doors and openings for ventilation. Muesenfechter quit work at noon on August 18th and went home; he died the next morning in an ambulance while being taken to the City Hospital. Inasmuch as the contention of the employer is that there is no substantial competent evidence showing or tending to show that the death of Muesenfechter was caused by an accident occurring in the course of and arising out of his employment, it will be necessary to give careful consideration to the facts as shown by the record. They are as follows:
Anna Muesenfechter, claimant and widow of the employee, testified: That her husband came home that day in the afternoon and he was sick. He had not been sick prior to that time. He came home earlier than usual on the 18th. He was sick. He laid down; I helped and waited on him. He was sick, said it was the heat. He ate supper that night. We had meat, potatoes, tomatoes and bread. He ate about as usual. He ate a little breakfast, he retained that. The doctor came at 11:15 a. m. The doctor gave him a hypodermic and said, "take him to the hospital—he needs a saline injection but get him there as quick as possible." He died on the way in the ambulance.
William Maeder: My work has been electrical work, connecting up electrical appliances. I get underneath the car. You crawl in the pit from the side. Sometimes, not very often, your head goes up under the car. The motors are at either end. I knew and worked with Al Muesenfechter during his life time. I knew he was there on August 18, 1936, I don't know where he worked. I had no contact with him that day. I don't know what kind of work he did. I don't know what job he was on. The day he went home I knew he was working with a man named Devall. I don't remember what he was doing. Probably he was connecting up motors. I did not see him the 18th of August, 1936, before he went home. I only heard he was sick and went home.
Albert M. Geitz: I knew Al Muesenfechter on August 18, 1936. I saw him that day. I saw him as he was going home sick. I asked him what was the matter and he said he was sick and that is all I know. I don't recall where he was working, I just passed him. I talked with Mr. Friedewald and Mr. Sullivan last night. I really don't know whether I told them I saw Muesenfechter getting out from underneath the car. I might have said anything last night and changed it today. I am here today and I am in this place now. Last night didn't count. I am under oath. As a matter of fact I saw Al Muesenfechter get out from under the car and he told me he was sick. I did not see him further that day, only when he passed me and said he was sick. I was working in the other shop and came out there and he could have been in No. 1 shop. I said "what is the matter, Al" and he said, "I am sick." I didn't pay no attention to him. I had work to do. The only place a man could be where the car was completed such as where I saw him was in shop No. 2. I would not say for sure that shop No. 2 is where I saw Muesenfechter around the car. I was passing the car and he was there. He might have been coming out of the one I did. When I saw him he was talking to a man by the car like he was leaving. He was not in the pit when I saw him. I don't know what pit he worked in that day. I just passed him and asked him what was the matter.
Richard Devall: I recall the last day Muesenfechter worked, about August 18, 1936. I worked with him that day and prior to that time. I started work that morning at the usual time with Al. It was 7:30. We were wiring motors that day. He worked till noon wiring motors that day. He told me he was sick that morning about 10 o'clock. He went underneath some truck where we were working and sat down on a box. He sat there a while and then came back to work. It was hot all over. The reason I told him to sit down and cool off was on account of him complaining about being sick. I was warm. I figured he was warm. I thought maybe he would feel better. I complained about the heat down there myself. The 18th we worked in No. 4. Only two of us were in the pits in shop No. 4 that day. It was hot everywhere. It was an exceedingly hot spell of weather.
Claimant offered in evidence the coroner's report, showing that Aloysius Muesenfechter came to his death on the 19th day of August, 1936, at about 10:46 o'clock a. m. from heat stroke.
Mary Strus: I am a sister of claimant. Mr. Muesenfechter came to our house on Monday evening the 17th. He looked bad, as if he was all in. He sat with his head down and said, if this work and weather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogue v. Wurdack
...Douglas v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Nashville, Tenn., 236 Mo.App. 467, 155 S.W.2d 267, 272(7).12 Muesenfechter v. St. Louis Car Co., Mo.App., 139 S.W.2d 1102, 1106(8); Lappin v. Prebe, supra, 131 S.W.2d loc. cit. 513(4); Sigmund v. Lowes, supra, 236 S.W.2d loc. cit. 17(10); Bowe......
-
Hill v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... grossly excessive. Turner v. Central Hardware Co., ... 186 S.W.2d 603. (5) Plaintiff's testimony is so ... self-contradictory that it does not support the conclusion ... reached in the divisional opinion and, in fact, cannot ... support any conclusion. Muesenfechter v. St. Louis Car ... Co., 139 S.W.2d 1102; Draper v. L. & N.R. Co., ... 348 Mo. 886, 156 S.W.2d 626; Hayes v. S.S. Kresge ... Co., 100 S.W.2d 325; Steele v. Kansas City So. R ... Co., 265 Mo. 97. (6) A failure to stop a man from doing ... what he knows he ought not to do hardly can be ... ...
-
Schonlau v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... would support either of two contradictory inferences, i.e., ... that Streiff's pushing the truck or the defective ... condition of the floor, was the cause of plaintiff's ... injury, there is a failure of proof since neither hypothesis ... is established. Muesenfechter v. St. L. Car Co., 139 ... S.W.2d 1102; Draper v. L. & N.R. Co., 348 Mo. 886, ... 156 S.W.2d 626. (4) Where plaintiff testifies ... contradictorily, his statements against interest will be ... taken as true because against interest. Mulcahey v ... Brotherhood of Ry. Trainmen, 229 Mo.App ... ...
-
Brown v. Weber Implement & Auto Co.
... ... ... Rehearing Denied December 8, 1947 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Wm. H ... Killoren, Judge ... ... Affirmed ... Paul ... J. Kaveney for appellant; Robert W. Herr ... Holton-Seeley Co., 334 Mo. 464, ... 66 S.W.2d 834; Duggan v. Toombs-Fay Sash & Door Co., ... 228 Mo.App. 61, 66 S.W.2d 973; Muesenfechter v. St. Louis ... Car Co., 139 S.W.2d 1102. (3) Where the employee is ... engaged at the time of the accident in a voluntary act not ... known to ... ...