Schmeer v. Anchor Cold Storage Co.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 27158 |
| Citation | 12 S.W.2d 433 |
| Parties | SCHMEER v. ANCHOR COLD STORAGE CO |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
S. F Pinter and R. T. Brownrigg, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Jones Hocker, Sullivan & Angert and W. A. McCaleb, all of St Louis, for respondent.
This is an action by an employe against his employer for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the latter's negligence. Plaintiff in the course of his employment was engaged in cleaning the water tubes of a boiler, using for that purpose a steam turbine. While so engaged, the steam hose to which the turbine was attached became disconnected therefrom, permitting the steam to escape. By reason thereof plaintiff was burned on the left side of his head, face, and neck. Such burns have resulted, he alleges, in permanent injury to his eyes and to his nervous system. For such injuries he seeks a recovery of $ 10,000. In the circuit court judgment was for defendant; the case is here on plaintiff's appeal.
Appellant summarizes the evidence heard on the trial below as follows:
'Plaintiff's Evidence.
'Plaintiff himself testified that he had had no experience in the use of the steam turbine; that the turbine was a cylinder about three inches in diameter by about six to eight inches in length, with cutter heads on the end of same, and that the action of the steam in passing through the turbine caused the same to rotate and the cutters to clean out the scale and other accumulations inside the boiler tubes; that the tubes were also about three inches in diameter; that the turbine was connected to a steam hose by an ordinary hose connection, with two ordinary hose clamps; that this hose, which was about twenty-five feet long, was connected at its other end to a steam pipe issuing from another boiler, which steam pipe had a valve; that on the 27th of September, 1924, he was ordered by his superior, Chief Engineer McGann, who had hired him, to turbine the tubes of one of the tube boilers in defendant's plant, and that the engineer assigned the fireman to how him how to connect and use the turbine; that he used the turbine as it was connected, and as he had been instructed to use the same, that is, by giving the turbine a rocking motion by pulling and pushing the hose while the turbine was inserted in one of the tubes.
'Plaintiff further testified that while he was engaged in this work and had worked for an hour or less, the turbine suddenly stopped and the hose immediately became detached from its connection and flew out and struck him, inflicting the injuries of which he complained.
'Another witness, a consulting engineer of long experience, named Fred Brendell, testified that the connection testified to by plaintiff between the steam hose and the turbine was insufficient and unsafe for the purpose; that during the course of the work the turbine might strike an obstruction which would cause the steam pressure to double up, and for that reason extra connections, such as a long corrugated nipple to be pressed into the end of the hose and to be held in place by two or more two-piece clamps, should be used; that this equipment was usually furnished by the turbine people, and that the manufacturers of steam hose did not furnish two-piece clamps nor a connection as dependable as that furnished with the turbine.
'Dr. C. B. Poore, who treated plaintiff at the time he was injured and still had him under his care at the time of the trial, testified to first and second-degree burns and to extreme nervousness.
'Dr. M. W. Hoge also testified to a functional disturbance of plaintiff's nervous system and that it could be produced by shock incident to his injury.
'Defendant's Evidence.
'For the defendant the chief engineer testified that he had told plaintiff to put a wire between the turbine and the hose, so that if the hose became detached it would have a tendency to stay in the tube; that he had used this steam hose, together with the connections as it was bought from a local manufacturer of hose, and that it had been used once before in the same condition by the fireman; that the hose was a five-ply steam hose with wire winding around it, and was used as purchased from a local manufacturer of hose without any change in the connections.
'The secretary and treasurer of the defendant company brought in a bill showing the purchase of a steam hose in December, 1923, with connections and four-inch one and a quarter of three-ply water hose clamps; that it came ready for use.
'The fireman testified that plaintiff had been using the turbine for several days and that plaintiff had the hose disconnected from the turbine, but not where it was clamped onto the nipple; that he told plaintiff to put a wire on it, and that the plaintiff neglected to do so; also that plaintiff was pulling on the hose and asked him to help him pull; that he told plaintiff to shut off the steam, and that the next thing plaintiff was burned.
'Dr. Hebert, an eye specialist, testified for the defendant that plaintiff's trouble with his eyes was due to an astigmatism and was not caused by injury.
'Dr. Carroll Smith testified for the defendant that he found no objective symptoms of any nervous condition or other injury in plaintiff.'
Other evidentiary facts will be noted, if necessary, in considering the assignments of error.
The negligence charged is, in substance, that the apparatus furnished by defendant for cleaning the boiler tubes was not for that purpose a reasonably safe appliance, in this, that the connection of the hose with the turbine was not of sufficient strength to withstand the pressure of the steam passing through it.
The answer, in addition to a general denial, charges contributory negligence as follows: 'That plaintiff at said time carelessly and negligently failed to fasten the turbine to the hose with a wire in a safe and secure manner, and carelessly and negligently used the said turbine without fastening same with the said wire; that plaintiff carelessly and negligently pulled the hose which was connected to the turbine mentioned in plaintiff's petition, thereby pulling the same loose from the said turbine and causing steam to escape and burn plaintiff; that plaintiff at said time carelessly and...
To continue reading
Request your trial