Stegeman v. Heil Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1928
• Docket Number: No. 19972.,19972.
• Parties: STEGEMANN v. HEIL PACKING CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

2 S.W.2d 169

STEGEMANN v. HEIL PACKING CO.

No. 19972.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 7, 1928.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; H. A. Hamilton, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Otto Stegemann against the Heil Packing Company. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

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

Arthur V. Lashly and George Barnett, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

DAUES, P. J.

This is an action for personal injuries in which plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $5,000, and defendant appeals. The petition, as amended, alleges that plaintiff was employed by defendant in its packing plant to handle beef entrails. It is alleged that plaintiff was at the time engaged in trimming such entrails, using a butcher knife, and that defendant carelessly and negligently required plaintiff to work in a place that was not reasonably safe, in that defendant furnished plaintiff a table, upon which to work on the beef entrails, which was too small and incapable of supporting the entrails which slipped, so that the entrails in falling from the table caused the knife with which plaintiff was working to come in contact with his hand, cutting a gash therein. The injuries alleged was the cutting of his fingers and a resultant infection, causing the loss of the small finger on the left hand, and the use of the left hand being permanently impaired.

The answer is a general denial with a plea of contributory negligence, charging negligence on the part of plaintiff in allowing the knife to slip and cut his hand; that plaintiff knew the condition of the place in which he was working; that the table was selected by him; and if there was any danger of plaintiff's hand becoming cut such was well known to the plaintiff.

Appellant's first assignment of error, as brought forward under "points and authorities," is that the demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, and under that point argues that the evidence wholly fails to establish any negligence on the part of defendant in connection with the furnishing of the table in question. The charge of the petition is as follows:

"The defendant carelessly and negligently required plaintiff to work in a place that was not reasonably safe, in that defendant furnished plaintiff a table or stand, upon which to work on the beef entrails aforesaid, that was slippery and too small and incapable of supporting said entrails upon which plaintiff was required to work," etc.

Plaintiff was the only witness in support of the allegations as to the manner of his injuries and the negligence of defendant. He testified that he was working at the packing house doing "casing work," that is, working up the entrails of a slaughtered beef; that he was required to work at a table which was 5 feet long and two feet wide, and that the room in which he worked was about 12 × 18. He said there was another table, or possibly more, in this room on which hog casings were sorted, and also a machine which performed some function in the cleaning of entrails. The top of the bench upon which plaintiff worked was covered with tin and was a table formerly used by a government inspector as an inspection bench. When asked whether it was a regular work bench used for that purpose, plaintiff said it was "just a table about 2 feet wide and 5 feet long." He said he was cutting a set of beef entrails which was so large that the table would not hold it, and that same slipped from the table; that he attempted to grab it, with his knife in one hand, and succeeded in catching hold, but in doing so he cut himself with the knife. He said the entrails weighed 75 pounds, and that when such a large set was put on the table it would cover a 3-foot table from side to side, and that it would require a table 3 feet wide to barely hold it; that with a 2-foot table the entrails would lap over and tend to fall off. Plaintiff said he spoke to the superintendent about the size of the table, and that the superintendent came in "and saw the table is so small in there, and I say to him that the table is too small, and he say, `no, you stay to work in there.'" He said he asked the superintendent to let him go out of that room and away from the table to another place to work, and that the superintendent told him the place was all right and to continue to do the work as he had been doing it before. Plaintiff said when his foreman, Sievers, brought this table into the room, plaintiff told him the table was too small, and that the foreman then said that they had no others. This, in effect, is plaintiff's direct testimony as to the facts surrounding the injuries, except as relates to the manner of treating his hand and the extent of his injuries.

On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that he was 64 years of age, and that he had been working for defendant for 13 years cutting entrails in the same room where he was injured. He testified that he had worked on different tables, but not on this one or one of this size, before being required to work at the table at which he was hurt. He used this table about 6 months. He said the entrails in their original state were not very slippery, but the fat being cut away and getting on the table made it slippery, and that if put on a table large enough they can be readily handled. The table was placed with one side next to the wall, and there was an upright board along the side of the table which was next to the wall, leaving the rest of the table free. He said the tables used for cutting hog casings were 2 feet 9 inches wide and 8 feet long, and that he had worked on this table with hog casings; that in working on the table at which he was hurt the casings would have a tendency to slip off, and had done so several times before, but that he had always attempted to hold them back. He described how his hand was treated and how, after 7 days, it became infected, describing the character of his injuries and the loss of time resultant. The rest of plaintiff's case is medical testimony.

From the evidence recited above, it can be seen that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of the negligence of defendant, and there is a sufficient showing of causal connection with injury. There is substantial evidence to the effect that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care, by furnishing plaintiff a table too small for the purpose of carrying out the work which plaintiff was required to do, and that such caused the injury. See Frey v. Krey Packing Co. (Mo. App.) 260 S. W. 500; Krajcovic v. Belz Provisions Co. (Mo. App.) 260 S. W. 825.

Plaintiff testified that the table was 2 feet wide and 5 feet long and that the entrails weighed 75 pounds, and there was evidence that if they were placed upon a table 3 feet wide they would cover the whole table from...