Ray v. Commercial Acid Co.

• Citation: 227 S.W. 851
• Decision Date: 08 February 1921
• Docket Number: No. 16334.,16334.
• Parties: RAY v. COMMERCIAL ACID CO.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

227 S.W. 851

RAY v. COMMERCIAL ACID CO.

No. 16334.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 8, 1921.

Rehearing Denied February 24, 1921.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Benjamin J. Klene, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by 3. C. Ray against the Commercial Acid Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jeffries & Corum, of St. Louis, for appellant.

W. H. Douglass, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries in which the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $2,000. Defendant appeals.

It appears that plaintiff has been a resident of the city of St. Louis for a number of years, and in 1916 he was, and for several years prior thereto had been, in the employ of one Joseph Ruprecht, who was engaged in the City of St. Louis in moving machinery. The defendant, Commercial Acid Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, and has a plant in East St. Louis, Ill., where it is engaged in the manufacture of corrosive acids, but has its general offices in the city of St. Louis, Mo.

In October, 1916, the defendant company was engaged in building, or having built for it, a manufacturing plant designed for the manufacture of chemicals. It entered into an agreement with the said Joseph Ruprecht to send over a number of his men who were then employed by the said Ruprecht in the city of St. Louis to its plant or building that was being erected in East St. Louis, Ill., to unload and place certain heavy machinery upon foundations in said building. Plaintiff was one of four men sent over by Ruprecht to do said work under the direction of the defendant's superintendent. While plaintiff and the other men were engaged in the work of placing the machinery upon the foundations therefor within the building, and while the building at the time was in the course of erection and work upon the roof thereof was under way, a hatchet which was being used by one of the carpenters at work on the roof of the said building fell and struck plaintiff's head, causing him serious injuries for which he recovered judgment as above stated.

Appellant presents for consideration two assignments of error: First, that plaintiff's claim for compensation falls within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state of Illinois, and must therefore be presented to the Industrial Board in the manner provided for in said act, and consequently that plaintiff is not entitled to prosecute this action. The second assignment is that there is no evidence in the record in this case on which to base a finding that the carpenter who permitted the hatchet to fall which struck plaintiff was an employé of the defendant.

In light of the facts as shown by the record in this case we are of the opinion that plaintiff's right to recover damages for his alleged injuries is not controlled by the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state of Illinois. And our conclusion in the matter is not affected by the question of whether plaintiff was in fact at the time he met with his injuries in the actual employ of the defendant company or of Joseph Ruprecht; for in either event the record is clear that the work which the plaintiff was doing at the time was not regular employment, but work that was merely incidental to the building and...