Robbins v. Big Circle Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1904
• Citation: 105 Mo. App. 78,79 S.W. 480
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: ROBBINS v. BIG CIRCLE MIN. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

79 S.W. 480

105 Mo. App. 78

ROBBINS v. BIG CIRCLE MIN. CO.^*

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 1, 1904.

MASTER—INJURY TO SERVANT—DEFECTIVE IMPLEMENT—KNOWLEDGE OF MASTER —QUESTION FOR JURY.

1. An employer is bound to furnish his employé with reasonably safe implements with which to work.

2. Where the defects of an implement with which an employé is required to work are not so glaring as to threaten immediate danger, and are not such that a person of ordinary prudence would not have used the implement, an employé injured thereby is not precluded from recovering therefor against the employer on the ground that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

3. Where it appeared, in an action by an employé for personal injuries, resulting in the loss of an eye, from a piece of iron breaking off a hammer he was using in his work, that the condition of the hammer was known to his employer, the question whether it was a reasonably safe implement to be used, in the exercise of due care, was for the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Joseph D. Perkins, Judge.

Action by Hiram Robbins against the Big Circle Mining Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. R. Robertson, for appellant. H. L. Shannon, for respondent.

BROADDUS, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover damages sustained by the loss of one of his eyes, alleged to have been the result of defendant's negligence while he was in its employ. The evidence tends to show that defendant was engaged in mining at Oronogo, Jasper county, Mo., and in cleaning and reducing zinc ores for market; that plaintiff in September, 1902, was in the employ of defendant, engaged in feeding what is called a "crusher" (a part of said mining plant); that one of plaintiff's duties was to break rock and large pieces of ore before they were put into said crusher, for which purpose he was furnished with a steel hammer; and that, while so engaged in breaking a bowlder of rock, a small piece of the said hammer broke off, and projected into his right eye, causing its destruction. There was also evidence tending to show that said hammer was old and worn, and had been reduced in weight while in use more than two pounds; that both plaintiff and the defendant's superintendent knew of its condition; and that said superintendent had promised plaintiff to supply its place with a new one, but had failed to do so. The objection plaintiff made to the hammer was that it was too light. The hammer was produced and exhibited to the jury, and it appeared that around its face it was broken and slivered, and there were indentations where many pieces had broken out of the edge. Frank Gear, a witness for plaintiff, and who was an engineer and blacksmith, testified that the hammer in question was worn, and also that the edges would "break loose and fly." The general tendency of the testimony on both sides was to the effect that all hammers of the kind in question would wear away and break off in small pieces by use—some more than others. It depending on how they were tempered. Some of the witnesses for defendant testified that they preferred an old, worn hammer to a new one. It also appeared that hammers were often used in the business until they were much worn and reduced in weight. The jury...