Staggs v. Gotham Min. & Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 2116.,2116.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: STAGGS v. GOTHAM MIN. & MILL. CO.

199 S.W. 717

STAGGS v. GOTHAM MIN. & MILL. CO.

No. 2116.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 20, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; R. A. Pearson, Judge.

In action by Kenneth Staggs against the Gotham Mining & Milling Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. S. Miller, of Joplin, for appellant. Pritchett & Bates, of Webb City, for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

The plaintiff sued and recovered a judgment for $6,000 for personal injuries received by him while in the defendant's employ operating sludge tables at defendant's mining plant in Jasper county, Mo. Plaintiff's injuries are very serious, and were caused by his hand and arm being caught and drawn into the machinery by the belt transmitting the power to operate the sludge tables. The plaintiff says very frankly that he does not know how or from what cause he came to be injured. The mill was a new one, and they were just getting it in shape to operate regularly. Plaintiff commenced work one day, and was injured the next day. All he personally knows about it is that the first day he worked the engine furnishing the power for operating all the machinery broke down, and they stopped for repairs. He had nothing to do with the engine and paid no attention to what was the trouble or what was done to remedy it. The next day the mill was again started, and plaintiff resumed work. The sludge tables, being new, required some adjusting before they would run smoothly. This was plaintiff's work; he being an experienced man in operating sludge mill machinery, and he set about to adjust and regulate the running of this part of the machinery. To do this he moved the drive belt from the fixed pulley operating the sludge machinery to the "idler" pulley which revolved without moving the machinery of the sludge mill. These two pulleys were about an inch apart. The sludge tables then stopped running, but the other machinery of the mill kept going, and this drive belt kept revolving rapidly on the "idler" pulley. The plaintiff then proceeded to adjust the sludge tables, and was using a wrench, when suddenly and without cause, so far as plaintiff knew, the drive belt jumped from the "idler" toward him onto the fixed pulley, catching his hand and arm and crushing same.

It appeared that the engine operating this mill was a secondhand one, and the negligence alleged in the petition and submitted to the court sitting as a jury is, in effect, that this engine was so defective that it failed to work properly and run evenly and smoothly, but would without warning suddenly pick up speed or suddenly lose speed, rendering the sludge tables and other machinery connected therewith dangerous to those operating same.

The evidence to sustain this allegation of negligence comes from witnesses other than plaintiff himself, but the fact that plaintiff disclaims any personal knowledge of negligence by no means sustains defendant's contention that there is no evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. The plaintiff's evidence makes it clear that the belt for some reason jumped from the idler to the fixed pulley, catching his hand and arm. He testified that:

"My sludge tables were not working right, and I was trying to remedy them. I went to my first table and was working on that, and then went to my second. My belt was running on the idler. There was a bolt on top of the table, and there was a spring right opposite underneath, and I took my wrench and had my arm over there like that, and started to take hold of that and turn this underneath that bolt, and it caught me and jerked my right arm over in there. The belt was running just fine. There was nothing wrong with the belt; it was brand new. I do not know what caused the belt to jump. * * * I do not know how the belt got over from the idler to the pulley that runs the machinery. * * * The belt jumped north and caught me, jumped right towards the table. The belt had been running there 10 or 15 minutes. I cannot account for the belt jumping off the idler. I have run them 12 hours at a time, and never had it jump off before in my life. * * * There was an inch between the pulleys. Here was all the machinery, I was in the clear. There was no machinery nearer than eight feet back of me, and this belt was six or eight inches from me, and an inch between the pulleys; and the belt caught my right arm and twisted it right in there. * * * It was done just that quick. The belt was running fine and smooth, and had been running for 10 or 15 minutes on the idler, and when I came to my senses I looked up, and the belt was running on the stationary."

Another witness, the jigman, who had been working there several days, and was working near by at the time, but did not see the accident, testified:

That this engine was a secondhand one; that it would start off in fine shape, and "the first thing you know it would just get to going a-flying, then we would have to shut down all at once"; that it had such "spells" often, and had one just before the plaintiff was hurt; that he knew from long experience what effect the rapid picking up in speed has on the belt; that when running smoothly the belt will stick, but in case they speed up they are liable to slip off; that from a sudden increase or decrease of the speed belts are liable to slip off, and if this belt was running on the idler, and the engine should speed up, the belt is liable to...