Omaha Packing Co. v. Sanduski

Decision Date22 July 1907
Docket Number2,585.
Citation155 F. 897
PartiesOMAHA PACKING CO. v. SANDUSKI.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Ralph W. Breckenridge (Charles J. Greene, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Constantine J. Smyth (Edward P. Smith, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before VAN DEVANTER and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and RINER, District judge.

RINER District Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the defendant in error by reason of the negligence of the plaintiff in error.

Louis Sanduski, plaintiff in the court below (referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff), at the time of his alleged injuries, January 20, 1906, was in the employ of the Omaha Packing Company, defendant in the court below (referred to hereinafter as the defendant), in its packing house, located at South Omaha, in the hog casing room, or department, and had been so employed for about three years. The room where the plaintiff worked was located in the third story of the building, connected with the defendant's packing plant and accessible from the street by means of a platform and stairway. The platform was 600 feet long, and between 10 and 14 feet wide. There is some conflict in the evidence as to its exact width. The platform where it connected with the stairway leading up on the outside of the building to the door of the room where Sanduski worked, was between 10 and 15 feet above the ground. John Tnczar, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that it was 'maybe 10 and maybe 12' feet from the foot of the stairs to the edge of the platform. There was a railing along the outside of the stairway, but no railing on the platform. It had, however, two pieces of two by four timber spiked to the edge of it. The platform sloped slightly toward the building; the outer edge being about three inches higher than the inner edge. The platform was used, not only as a passageway for employes going to and from their work, but also for trucking the product of the plant, as one of the witnesses puts it, 'from the beef house to the tank room,' located at different points along the platform and had been so used during the entire time of plaintiff's employment. The testimony shows that in this trucking process, if there was anything wet in the product conveyed by the trucks, the water would drip off on the platform, and that there usually was water dripping from the product carried on the trucks. All of this was known to the plaintiff. He testified that he knew the platform was used by truckers every day, in cold as well as warm weather, and that water dripped off the meat carried on the trucks onto the platform, and that during his entire term of service he had used this platform and stairway as a passageway in going to and from his work, sometimes during the day time and at other times after dark.

As to the condition of the platform on the morning when plaintiff went to work, the testimony is not altogether clear. Tnczar who went to work about the same time plaintiff did, testified that he did not see any ice on the platform. Zalinski another witness, could not say whether there was ice on the platform in the morning. Plaintiff at first said there was ice on the platform, but subsequently said he did not notice whether the platform was frozen or not in the morning. Plaintiff testified that on the day of his injury he went to work in the morning about 6:45, and quit work at about 6:30 in the evening; that it was dark both when he went to work in the morning and when he quit in the evening; that he descended the stairs on the outside of the building leading from the third story down to the platform; that he took a few steps after reaching the platform, when he slipped, and that was all he knew. He testified also that the night was foggy. He could not say whether there was ice on the platform, but stated that he felt 'under his feet it was kind of slippery, but not long, and slipped, and that is all he knew. ' The record does not disclose who found him when he was picked up, or the condition in which he was found. Both Tnczar and Zalinski testified that there was ice in ridges on that part of the platform where they trucked beef, and, when asked...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Hall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 15, 1917
    ... ... Co., 105 F. 733, 46 C.C.A. 94; Fortin v. Manville Co. (C.C.) ... 128 F. 642; Omaha Packing Co. v. Sanduski, 155 F. 897, 84 ... C.C.A. 89, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 355; Dasher v. Mining Co., ... ...
  • Dunlap v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1911
    ...Co., 70 Hun 530; Taylor v. Mfg. Co., 143 Mass. 470; Dieboldt v. Baking Co., 72 Hun 403; Headford v. Mfg. Co., 23 Ont. Rep. 335; Omaha Co. v. Sanduski, 155 F. 897; Russ v. Co., 110 Iowa 743; Juchatz v. 120 Mich. 654; Hoard v. Mfg. Co., 177 Mass. 69; Butler v. Frazee, 211 U.S. 459; Am. Co. v.......
  • Jackson v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 14, 1910
    ... ... Burke v. Union Co., 84 C.C.A. 626, 157 F. 178; ... Omaha Co. v. Sanduski, 84 C.C.A. 89, 155 F. 897, 19 ... L.R.A.(N.S.) 355; Railroad v. Griffin, 85 C.C.A ... ...
  • Swearingen v. Consolidated Troup Mining Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 30, 1908
    ... ... v ... Boutin, 149 F. 680; Musser, Etc., Co. v. Brown, ... 126 F. 141; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Skoumal, 125 F ... 470. (2) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury ... that ... 620; ... Montana Copper Co. v. Van Buren, 123 F. 61; ... Shandrew v. Railroad, 142 F. 320; Omaha Packing Co ... v. Sandusky, 155 F. 897 ...          William ... B. Skinner with ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT