Roehrig v. American Car & Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1924
• Docket Number: No. I7856.,I7856.
• Parties: ROEHRIG v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

257 S.W. 1086

ROEHRIG v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.

No. I7856.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 8, 1924.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles W. Rutledge, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Daniel Roehrig against the American Car & Foundry Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Watts, Gentry & Lee, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Foristel & Eagleton and Harry S. Rooks, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

DAVIS, C.

For that, while standing on a cast iron plate over a pit of water, a slag of metal dropped through a hole in the iron plate, causing an explosion and injuring him, plaintiff recovered a judgment in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for $3,000. Thereupon defendant appealed.

Defendant offered instructions to find for defendant at the close of plaintiffs evidence and at the close of the case, both of which the court overruled.

The only question raised relates to the refusal of the trial court to give the peremptory instructions as requested.

The evidence tends to show that on February 1, 1921, plaintiff was working for defendant as a laborer in one of defendant's iron foundries. His duties were connected with the cinder pit and iron furnace. This furnace, melting iron, was about 9 feet wide and 50 or 60 feet long. To the back was a cast iron trough about 2 feet long and 8 inches wide, through which a slag from the molten metal ran from the furnace in the trough to a cinder pit sunk in the ground. This pit was about 6 feet deep, 4 feet wide, and 6 feet long, containing about 100 gallons of water. Over the pit was a cast iron plate, about an inch thick, 3 feet wide, and 5 or 6 feet long. The plate was not fastened or secured in any manner. One edge of the pit was about 2 feet from the furnace, and the iron plate at that point had a crescent shaped hole in it about 12 or 14 inches long, and from 5 to 6 or 8 to 10 inches wide, as the different statements show. The slag dropped from the trough through the hole to the water in the pit. The lower end of the trough was 4 to 6 inches above the iron plate. The top of the pit and the iron cover were from 31 inches to 3 to 4 feet below the foundry floor. The walls surrounding the pit rose to the general floor level. In addition, there was a bucket and chain apparatus, known as a conveyor, that ran from the bottom of the pit through the iron plate and several feet above it, used to convey granulated slag from the water in the pit to the floor level. This conveyor was situated to the left of a person standing on the Plate, and faced the furnace trough. The furnace, cinder pit, and appurtenances were in continuous operation day and night. The intervals known as "heats," during which the metal was heated in the furnace, lasted from 30 to 45 minutes, with the same interval between heats. During a heat the slag would, at a certain time in the process, run from the furnace through the above trough to the water in the cinder pit. The stream of hot slag was as large as a man's wrist—about a five-inch stream. The water caused the hot slag to granulate or pulverize, becoming a commercial product for use in blast furnaces. The intermittent streams of hot slag kept the water in the cinder pit warm. The means of regulating the temperature of the water, after being heated, was to allow cold water to run in from a one-inch water pipe. A three-inch drain pipe was used for the overflow.

Plaintiff began his labor at 5 a. m. and worked 12 hours. His duties were to keep the trough hole open so that the slag would run out, and to remove the slag cinders from the trough, upon the hot slag chilling and solidifying in the trough. In so doing, he stood on the iron cover plate over the cinder pit. He was also required to carry away the cinders and get coal in a wheelbarrow. For the performance of his duties he was supplied with a bar, hook, and shovel. On February 1, about 1:15 p. m, while standing on the iron plate over the cinder pit and, attempting to remove a large slag cinder from the trough, the cinder fell in the pit through the hole in the cover plate under the end of the trough, exploding when it became immersed in the water. The explosion caused the iron plate on which plaintiff was standing to be thrown upward a short distance. The plate then dropped back, causing the bones in plaintiffs left leg and ankle to be fractured, permanent injuries resulting.

Such other facts as we think it necessary to discuss will be found in the opinion.

I. Four specifications of negligence appear in the petition, as follows:

"(1) In failing to use reasonable care to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work, in that the said iron plate was not fastened, and was likely to be dislodged and plaintiff injured, by an explosion which was likely to occur from the causes above related, and that defendant knew or should have known thereof.

"(2) That defendant was negligent in ordering and directing plaintiff to stand upon said plate, for the above reasons.

"(3) That defendant negligently failed to warn plaintiff of the aforesaid dangers.

"(4) Defendant negligently required, suffered, and permitted the water in said pit to be and remain at such a temperature that an explosion was likely to result in the event slag or cinders fell into said pit in the course of the work and did thereby negligently fail to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work."

These specifications charge primary negligence, and, as plaintiff's contributory negligence is not raised or urged here, if there are sufficient probative facts, as to one or more of the specifications, to take the cause to the jury, we must affirm the judgment. Gubernick v. Railroad (Mo. Sup.) 217 S. W. 33. In arguing the raised questions, defendant asserts that the first three specifications must be disregarded, for that it does not appear that either of the three was the proximate cause of the injury, because the iron plate, on which plaintiff was standing, was perfectly safe and secure, absent the explosion. The evidence tends to show that such explosions had before occurred in the foundry and were likely again to occur; that plaintiff, although employed for three or four months previous to his injury, was unaware that the slags exploded, for no explosion had occurred during his employment. To assert that the injury would not have occurred without the explosion...