Stotler v. Blanton-Sims Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 18596.,18596.
• Citation: 273 S.W. 137
• Parties: STOTLER v. BLANTON-SIMS CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

273 S.W. 137

STOTLER v. BLANTON-SIMS CO.

No. 18596.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 2, 1925.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1925.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Anthony F. Ittner, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Boney Stotler against the Blanton-Sims Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Fordyce, Holliday & White, of St. Louis, for appellant.

William H. Douglass, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action for damages on account of injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant as a laborer at its plant in the city of St. Louis. The cause was tried to a jury. There was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, and judgment was given accordingly. Defendant appeals.

At the time of his injury the plaintiff was working on the fourth floor of defendant's building. He was engaged in loading barrels on the carrier of a conveyor, which was being operated in a shaft extending from the basement to the ceiling of the fourth floor of the building. This shaft consisted of holes in the floors and an iron framework The conveyor was operated in the shaft by means of endless sprocket chains which passed over revolving sprocket wheels. The carrier of the conveyor consisted of iron fingers, attached to a horizontal iron bar, and extending horizontally at right angles to the bar. Barrels were loaded on this carrier to be moved from one floor to the other. When barrels were being loaded and moved, the conveyor moved continuously. There was no provision made for stopping the conveyor when a barrel was being loaded on the carrier. On each floor of the building, except the fourth floor, there was a so-called loading platform. Such platform was attached to the floor of the building, and from it iron lingers extended horizontally into the shaft. Barrels were loaded onto the fingers of this platform, and were picked up by the fingers of the carrier as the conveyor moved upward in the shaft, the fingers of the carrier passing between the fingers of the platform. When the platform was not in use for loading purposes, the fingers were lifted out of the shaft and thrown back upon the floor by means of a hand lever, so as to permit the loaded carrier to move freely upward or downward in the shaft. On the fourth floor there was an angle iron or brace across the shaft, which formed a part of the framework of the shaft, and this angle iron was located three feet above the floor, and flush with the edge of the floor. As said, there was no loading platform on this floor. The plaintiff was required to load the barrels by rolling them from the floor onto the carrier as the conveyor moved upward. He was engaged in this work when he was injured. The barrel he was loading at the time he was injured was two feet in diameter. He rolled the barrel onto the carrier as it moved upward, and when he did so the barrel bounced or rolled back towards him and caught his hands between the barrel and the angle iron, and thus the injuries for which he sues were inflicted.

In his petition the plaintiff assigns negligence on the part of the defendant, in this, to wit: (1) That the defendant negligently placed the angle iron so close to the floor and the conveyor as to endanger the plaintiff's hands while loading barrels onto the carrier; (2) that the defendant negligently failed to equip the fourth floor with a loading platform; and (3) that the defendant negligently failed to provide a means of stopping the conveyor when the carrier reached the fourth floor so that the barrels could be loaded onto the carrier while it was stopped.

The court admitted in evidence, over the objection of defendant, a photograph of the conveyor and the framework of the conveyor shaft at the place where the plaintiff was injured, offered by plaintiff, and the defendant assigns reversible error upon this ruling of the court. The ground of this assignment is that the angle iron or brace against which the plaintiff's hands were caught and injured was not shown on the photograph, but had been removed from the framework before the photograph was taken, and that therefore the photograph did not correctly represent the place and appliances as they existed at the time of plaintiff's injury. The position of the angle iron in its relation to the floor and the conveyor was definitely shown by the oral testimony, and there was no controversy concerning it. Its position was also shown by markings on the photograph, which were pointed out to the jury by the witnesses. There was an angle iron shown on the photograph exactly like the angle iron in question, and this was also pointed out to the jury by the witnesses. In these circumstances, there was no error in the admission of the photograph in evidence.

The defendant assigns...