Scott v. American Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1929
• Docket Number: No. 20656.,20656.
• Parties: SCOTT v. AMERICAN MFG. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

20 S.W.2d 592

SCOTT v. AMERICAN MFG. CO.

No. 20656.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

October 8, 1929.

Rehearing Denied October 23, 1929.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; M. Hartmann, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Whorton R. Scott against the American Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Percy Werner and Thomas Bond, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Everett J. Hullverson, Mark D. Eagleton, and Hensley, Allen & Marsalek, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, C.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on September 3, 1925, while he was engaged in the performance of his duties as a servant of defendant. The verdict of the jury was in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, in the sum of $3,000; and, from the judgment rendered in conformity therewith, defendant has duly appealed.

At the time his injury was received, plaintiff was assisting in the operation of a machine known as a softener, which seems to have been used for softening the fiber which went into the manufacture of bagging. The machine consisted of two sets of rollers placed in a horizontal position, and having corrugated surfaces that fitted into one another like gears. On both sides of the rollers were metal cylinders or housings, within which were springs which served the purpose of exerting pressure upon the rollers. There was an opening in the side of each cylinder, and on the top of each a lock nut through which was screwed a bolt, the lower end of which was in contact with a metal disc inside the cylinder. By screwing the bolt down against the disc, the disc was forced downward, and the spring in turn depressed, and pressure thereby exerted upon the rollers.

It appears that in the passage of fiber between the rollers the material would frequently become clogged, whereupon it would become necessary for the operator to release the rollers, which act was accomplished by loosening the lock nut, unscrewing the bolt extending through the top of the cylinder, and then loosening two nuts, one at each side of the cylinder, which held it in position on the machine.

Upon the occasion in question the machine had become clogged, so that it was necessary for plaintiff to release five of the rollers. From his own testimony it appears that he loosened the lock nut, the bolt, and the two side nuts in the usual way, and then took hold of one of the housings with his hand to remove it from the machine. In doing so he permitted his thumb to extend into the hole in the side of the housing, the spring of which had failed to rise when the top bolt had been released. Unknown to plaintiff, the disc had become fastened or caught in the cylinder, and it was in consequence of this that the spring was still held depressed. As the housing was moved, the spring was immediately released and caused to fly up, and caught and injured plaintiff's thumb.

There was testimony from defendant's superintendent, who was called as a witness for plaintiff, that, if the machine was working properly, and if the discs and springs were in the proper condition, the discs would not bind in the housings; that there was no objection to taking hold of the side of the housing, as plaintiff did, which was a safe method if everything connected with the housing was in proper condition; and that, if the spring forced the disc up properly, there was no danger to the operator, but that, if the disc became caught, and the operator chanced to have his finger or thumb protruding through the hole in the side of the housing, he was likely to sustain an injury if the spring was released.

Plaintiff himself testified that the discs became caught very frequently; that they were old and rusty; and that they were sometimes too large, and sometimes too small.

An expert machinist, who had made an examination of the machine and of the particular cylinder which plaintiff was attempting to remove when he was injured, all of which were shown to have been in substantially the same condition at the time of the examination as when plaintiff was hurt, testified that the cylinder was defective, in that there was a piece broken out of it, and that the spring was broken and set, with a second section of the spring placed upon the first in order to obtain the proper compression. He further testified that, when the disc was too loose and the spring broken, the end of the spring was not at right angles with the side, with the result that the disc was over to one side, and liable to hang at any point in the housing.

Defendant's superintendent also testified, beyond what we have already stated, that the machine had been in use in the plant for about ten years; that the springs and discs were wearing parts; and that, so far as he knew, no new springs or discs had ever been put into the machine. Defendant's master mechanic, upon whom the duty of inspection rested, testified that he had made no special examination of the machine, and that his practice was not to inspect any machine unless a report was brought to him that there was something wrong about it. The superintendent admitted knowing that the discs became caught in the housings for one reason or another, although he stated that he personally had never seen such a thing happen.

The negligence pleaded and relied upon by plaintiff was the failure of defendant to exercise ordinary care to furnish him a reasonably safe place in which to work, in that it provided springs which were broken, set, and too short, by reason of which the springs and discs were caused to bind in the housings while adjustments were being made, and to rebound and spring up and injure his hand in the event of the attempted removal of the housings.

The answer of defendant was a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence, to the effect that plaintiff, in endeavoring to remove the housing, had failed to release the nuts on both sides thereof evenly, in consequence of which the housing became clogged; and, further, that the injury sustained by him was aggravated by his own neglect in the care and treatment of the same.

For further answer and defense it was alleged that on September 18, 1925, in consideration of the sum of $75 paid to him by defendant, and of certain medical, surgical, and hospital services furnished him on account of the injuries complained of, plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant in writing, whereby he released and discharged defendant from any and all claims and demands which he had against it by reason of the injuries he had sustained.

For his reply plaintiff denied generally the new matter in the answer; and for further reply admitted the execution of the release in question, but averred under oath that his signature to the same had been procured by the fraudulent misrepresentations and conduct of defendant.

For its first point defendant argues most earnestly that its requested peremptory instruction in the nature of a demurrer to all the evidence should have been given, for two reasons: First, because there was no showing of fraud in the execution of the release; and, second, because no substantial proof of negligence was adduced.

In regard to the manner in which the release was obtained, plaintiff testified that, when he was first discharged from the hospital, he went to defendant's plant to get some money, of which he was in dire need at the time for the payment of rent and the purchase of food and fuel. Upon former occasions when he had obtained money from defendant under similar circumstances he had been required to sign a paper, and then at pay day the amount that had been advanced to him would be deducted or withheld from his envelope. Upon this occasion plaintiff made his request for money to his foreman, as well as to one Deter, the chief clerk, who, after consulting with each other informed him that they could let him have four weeks' pay, or $75, whereupon they gave him the money, and prepared a paper which he signed. He further testified that, when he signed the paper and received the money, no one informed him that he was signing a release; that he had never attended school a day in his life, and was unable to read, but had merely learned to write his signature; and that, after signing the instrument, he returned on later occasions to the plant and obtained additional sums of money throughout the period of his disability, for which he was required to sign a paper each time.

Counsel for defendant argue that the record is devoid of any evidence whatever of any false representations of any kind or character on the part of defendant's agents as to the nature of the instrument which plaintiff was asked to sign, and that the most that can be said of plaintiff's testimony is that it tends to prove that a document was submitted to him without explanation, which he signed without any comment or inquiry, apparently assuming in his own mind (though the fact was not communicated by him to defendant) that he was signing a receipt for wages.

It is undoubtedly true, as has been suggested in the course of defendant's argument, that no person, whether he can read or not, can be permitted, in the absence of trick or deception, to sign a written instrument, and then complain that he did not know its contents; but, as the rule itself implies, the same cannot be set up and relied upon as a defense by one who through fraud or deception has taken advantage of the ignorant, the needy, or the helpless in the procurement of his signature to the instrument.

We have no hesitation in saying that this case is not as strong for the plaintiff as are many in the books in which a similar issue has been held to be one for the jury to...