Peters v. Hooven & Allison Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 15261.,15261.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: PETERS v. HOOVEN & ALLISCN CO.

281 S.W. 71

PETERS v. HOOVEN & ALLISCN CO.

No. 15261.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 2, 1925.

Certiorari Denied February 18, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. B. Buckner, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Annie Marie Peters, by next friend, E. Peters, against the Hooven & Allison Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mosman, Rogers & Buzard, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Harry G. Kyle and Walter A. Raymond, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

ARNOLD,

This is a personal injury suit. Defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of binding twine from sisal, and owns and operates a factory located at North Kansas City, Mo. Plaintiff, a minor, 19 years of age at the time of the alleged injury, previously had worked for defendant from October, 1921, to August 1, 1922, returning in September of the latter year, when she worked for a period of about two months. She again entered defendant's employ on January 2, 1923, and was injured on the 4th day of January, thereafter, at about 1:30 p. m., by being struck in the eye by a piece of a small bolt or screw.

Plaintiff's duty required her to attend to about 14 machines, which were all alike and were used in spinning the twine. She was required to change the spool, or bobbin, on each about every 10 or 15 minutes, or as often as a spool was filled with twine to replace it with an empty spool on the spindle and see that each can containing the raw sisal, or "silver," was in proper place at the end of each machine. The process of changing the spools required the operator to shut the machine down, cut the twine, remove the full spool, and place an empty spool in the flyer, or spindle, fasten the twine to the empty spool, and again start the machinery.

About 20 of these machines were placed along the east wall of the building, and plaintiff looked after those numbering 1 to 14, inclusive, beginning at the south end. There was an aisle about 4 feet in width running east and west between the machines. There were two of the flyers or bobbins on each machine frame, one on each side thereof, as the machines were located, one on the north and the other on the south side thereof.

The raw sisal was drawn horizontally across the machine by means of a sprocket chain, which moved in an east and west direction and carried sisal to the "nipper." The sisal was in long, loose strands as it entered the nipper and was wound into twine in passing through. After passing through the nipper, it ran over two capstans, and from them over "whirls" onto the spool upon which it was wound. The nipper is described as a funnel-shaped piece something like an automobile horn in shape; it was placed in a horizontal position and contained a tube into which the twine ran and was formed into what was called yarn. The nipper also held the various strands of yarn while the rollers twisted it into shape as twine. The nipper was bolted to the framework of the machine.

Negligence is alleged in the petition as follows:

"That defendant failed to keep its said nipper on its fourth machine in such repair that a part of the screw or bolt forming a part of the nipper would not break off and strike plaintiff in the eye; that defendant negligently permitted said screw or bolt to become loose and cracked, and negligently permitted same to remain in said loose and defective condition; that defendant negligently failed to exercise ordinary care to keep said nipper in such repair that a part of the said screw or bolt would not break off and strike plaintiff in the eye; that defendant negligently failed to maintain a proper system of inspection of said machine and said nipper and bolt; that defendant negligently failed to exercise ordinary care to furnish plaintiff reasonably safe appliances and machinery with which to work; that defendant negligently failed to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work."

The answer was a general denial. Upon the issues thus made the case was tried to a jury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer, which the court refused. Whereupon defendant specifically demurred upon the grounds that there was (1) no evidence of negligence in failing to keep the nipper in repair; (2) or that it was negligently permitted to remain loose and defective; and (3) that the charge that defendant negligently failed to exercise ordinary care to furnish safe appliances and a safe place to work are mere conclusions without any statement of facts to show negligence. The demurrers were overruled, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,700. Defendant appeals.

The first assignment of error now presented is that the court erred in not sustaining defendant's demurrer interposed at the close of plaintiff's case; that "the evidence wholly failed to show that the bolt was loose and/or cracked at any time, or that it broke because it was loose and/or cracked. Hence there was an entire failure on the part of plaintiff to prove the allegation of negligence upon which the case was submitted to the jury."

It is admitted that it was no part of plaintiff's duty to inspect or repair the machinery. Her testimony was that at about 10:30 a. m. on the day of the accident, machine No. 4 began causing trouble — the twine knotting and wrapping around the nipper, and that it would break. Plaintiff then shut down the machine and, following previous instructions, placed a spool on the machine to notify the mechanic that the machine was out of order and needed repairs. She went to her lunch about 12 o'clock, and on her return at 12:30, she noticed the spool had been removed, indicating that the repairs had been made and the machine was fit for use. She then started the machine, and it appeared to run all right until about 1:30 p. m., when the accident occurred while she was working at machine No. 5. She was standing in the aisle between machines Nos. 4 and 5, having her back to No. 4, when she heard a noise at that machine, and as she turned around something hit her in the eye; that she stopped the machine and noticed that the nipper of that machine was turned sidewise, and the bolt which fastened it to the frame was gone, and part of the broken bolt was on the, floor and had the appearance of being chipped; that she then went to the foreman for first aid lo her eye, and on her return to the machine, she found it in the same condition as when she left it; that she then discovered the other part of the broken bolt on the floor, near where her feet had been at the time of the injury; and that this part was frayed and jagged.

This evidence was not disputed. Plaintiff testified that she had had no trouble with her eyes previous to this injury. She continued working for the rest of the day, although her eye watered and pained her, but she was unable to work thereafter for a period of three months; that she was attended by two physicians, one of whom was an eye specialist, and that she has to wear glasses constantly; that she suffers constant pain in the injured eye, her side vision is greatly impaired, and she is unable to read; that there is a scar on the right eyeball where she was struck by the hard substance of which she complains.

It is the rule that in passing upon a demurrer to the evidence, plaintiff's evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the cause of action, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom must be resolved in plaintiff's favor. In view of the evidence of record, we entertain no doubt of its sufficiency to carry the case to the jury on the question of defendant's negligence.

[3] It is...