Siebert v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 18901.,18901.
• Citation: 273 S.W. 153
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: SIEBEERT v. LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO.

273 S.W. 153

SIEBEERT v. LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO.

No. 18901.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 18, 1925.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1925.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert W. Hall, Judge.

Action by Catherine Siebert against the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jones, locker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Mark D. Eagleton and Harry S. Rooks, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while working at defendant's factory as a tobacco packer. Plaintiff recovered judgment for $3,000, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff injured one of her fingers, while handling tobacco boxes, by having her finger come in contact with a splinter on the inside of one of the boxes. The negligence counted upon in the petition was: (a) Negligent failure to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe box; (b) failure to exercise ordinary care to inspect; (c) failure to remove the splinter from the box; and (d) failure to warn plaintiff.

The answer was a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.

The evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff discloses that she was 33 years of age, and resided with her mother in the city of St. Louis. She was working for defendant, and her work consisted of packing tobacco in boxes. In doing this work plaintiff stood at a table. On this table plugs of chewing tobacco were placed to be packed in boxes. Each plug of tobacco was 3 inches wide, 1 foot long, and a little less than ½ inch in thickness. This tobacco was packed by plaintiff in wooden boxes. The dimension of these boxes was 6 inches wide, 12 inches long, and 3 inches deep. Sixteen plugs were placed in a box. The boxes were brought to plaintiff on a truck. Plaintiff had nothing to do with the work of loading the boxes on the truck or bringing them to the table at which she worked. When a truckload of boxes would be brought to plaintiff they would be piled upon the truck to a height of about 6 feet. Plaintiff would take two boxes at a time from the truck by grasping the sides of the two boxes, with her right hand. This was the method of performing the work, which was done hurriedly. The boxes, when brought to plaintiff, were new boxes from the Mengel Box Factory adjacent to the defendant's place of business. The boxes were new, and none of them had been used. At the time plaintiff received her injury she had been working for the defendant about 2 weeks, and while engaged in her duties of packing tobacco she started to take some boxes from a truckload which had just been brought to her table. She reached up and caught hold of two boxes in the manner aforementioned, as it was her duty to do in the performance of her work, and in catching hold of the two boxes one of her fingers was pierced by a splinter on the inside of one of the boxes. This was on a Saturday, and plaintiff worked until quitting time, which was 12 o'clock. In the afternoon the injured finger began to cause her pain, and continually grew worse until the next morning, when she went to her physician. The finger continued to grow worse, and became more infected until the final result was a permanent injury to the middle finger, in that it became stiff, and other fingers on her hand were so impaired as a result thereof that she has permanently lost more than 50 per cent, of the normal use of her right hand. Plaintiff was receiving $11.25 a week while working In defendant's employ.

The defendant introduced two witnesses who testified in its behalf.

Frank Scheffer, superintendent of the Mengel Box Company, which manufactured the boxes in question, testified that he had been in the employ of the box company for 24 years; that the Mengel Box Company had been engaged in making boxes for 40 years, and had a factory adjoining defendant's and in the same building, as well as factories in several other large cities in the United States; that the Mengel Box Company manufactures all the wooden boxes used by the defendant, and that such boxes are manufactured and inspected by the company and then conveyed to the defendant's factory; that the inspector of the boxes is supposed to pick out defective ones if they are found.

Edward R. Carr, foreman of defendant's pressroom, where the plaintiff worked, testified that he had been working for the defendant for thirty years; that the boxes used by the defendant company are brought into its factory by means of a chute; that the defendant has a man at the chute who receives the boxes and throws aside any defective boxes, and places the accepted ones on a truck, from which point the boxes are taken to the place where they are packed or filled with tobacco; that the Mengel Box Company is a reputable company; and that the defendant gets boxes...