Steeley v. Kurn
| Decision Date | 30 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 36678 |
| Citation | 157 S.W.2d 212,348 Mo. 1142 |
| Parties | Claude Steeley v. J. M. Kurn and John G. Lonsdale, Trustees of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied December 16, 1941. Motion to Transfer to Banc Withdrawn January 6, 1942.
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court; Hon. Charles A. Calvird Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Mann & Mann and Chas. E. Hassett for appellants.
Wm B. Myers, Sylvan Bruner and Vance Julian for respondent.
Action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. A., Sec. 51 et seq. Judgment for $ 10,000. Defendants appealed.
Plaintiff and other employees (Murphy, Mahan and Shirley) of defendants were lifting a rod from the floor to a wagon for movement to the machine shop. Plaintiff and Murphy were lifting one end of the rod. Shirley and Mahan were lifting the other end of the rod. Plaintiff testified that when the rod was "crotch high," Murphy suddenly "released his hold," thereby casting additional weight on plaintiff, which caused the injuries alleged in the petition. He also testified that Murphy "just deliberately turned it loose."
The other employees, including the foreman, testified that no such thing occurred; that when the rod was twelve inches from the floor plaintiff "released his hold," stating that he "had a twitch in his back." They also testified that Murphy, Mahan and Shirley continued lifting and placed the rod on the wagon. On cross-examination by plaintiff there was evidence as follows:
Murphy testified that he did not stumble; that the rod did not slip from his hands, and that he did not "release his hold" with either hand. Mahan testified that the employees lifting the rod did not either slip or stumble. Shirley testified that the hands of the employees lifting the rod did not slip from the rod, and that they did not either slip or stumble while lifting the rod.
In substance, plaintiff alleged that Murphy negligently and without warning "released his hold" on the rod, which cast the entire weight of the rod on plaintiff, and that Murphy, in violation of a custom of the yard, negligently failed to warn plaintiff that he was about to "release his hold" on the rod.
At the trial defendants contended for a directed verdict. On review, and on plaintiff's contention that Murphy deliberately and intentionally dropped the rod, we ruled that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendants on the theory that the deliberate and intentional dropping of the rod by Murphy was not in furtherance of the employer's business. [Steeley v. Kurn et al., 146 S.W.2d 578.] On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States in a per curiam (Steeley v. Kurn, 61 S.Ct. p. 1087) merely reversed the judgment of this court, citing Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635, 50 S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. 1082. The said court gave no reason for the ruling, other than the citation of said case. In this situation it must be assumed that said court construed the Jamison case to rule that the word "negligence," as used in the Federal Employers' Liability Act, includes a deliberate and intentional injury of an employee by another employee of equal station.
However there remains for review assignments of error on the trial of the cause. Defendants challenge instructions given at the request of plaintiff. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourne v. Manley, 8807
... ... 304 ... 10 Vosburg v. Smith, Mo.App., 272 S.W.2d 297, 302(9); Ashley v. Williams, 365 Mo. 286, 293, 281 S.W.2d 875, 880; Steeley v. Kurn, 348 Mo. 1142, 1144, 157 S.W.2d 212, 213(4); Doyle v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Ry. Co., 326 Mo. 425, 432, 31 S.W.2d 1010, ... ...
-
Fellows v. Farmer
... ... Allen Cab Co., 360 Mo. 1094, 232 S.W.2d 535, 539(4, 5); DeMoulin v. Roetheli, 354 Mo. 425, 189 S.W.2d 562, 565(3); Steeley v. Kurn, 348 Mo. 1142, 157 S.W.2d 212, 213(4); Doyle v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Term. Ry. Co., 326 Mo. 425, 31 S.W.2d 1010, 1012(4), certiorari ... ...
-
De Moulin v. Roetheli
... ... Madison v. Taxi Owners Assn., 148 S.W. (2d) 106; Roberts v. Schaper Stores Co., 318 Mo. 1190, 3 S.W. (2d) 241; Steeley v. Kurn, 348 Mo. 1142, 157 S.W. (2d) 212. (9) The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent under all of the evidence. Roetheli testified that there ... ...
-
Russell v. Union Elec. Co. of Mo.
... ... view of the evidence rule. Schneider v. Dubinsky Realty ... Co., 344 Mo. 654, 127 S.W.2d 691, 694; Hopkins v ... Kurn, 351 Mo. 41, 171 S.W.2d 625, 632; Klaber v ... Fidelity Bldg. Co. (Mo. App.), 19 S.W.2d 758, 762; ... Andres v. Cox, 223 Mo.App. 1139, 23 ... Waddell case, supra , relied on by defendant, is not ... controlling here because our Supreme Court has ruled to the ... contrary in Steeley v. Kurn, 348 Mo. 1142, 157 ... S.W.2d 212, 213, and Radler v. St. Louis-San Francisco R ... Co., 330 Mo. 968, 51 S.W.2d 1011. In the two ... ...