Swindler v. Butler Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52985,No. 1,52985,1 |
| Citation | Swindler v. Butler Mfg. Co., 426 S.W.2d 78 (Mo. 1968) |
| Parties | Leslie SWINDLER, Appellant, v. BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Edward L. Simmons, and Russell D. Jacobson, Kansas City, for appellant.
Gene C. Morris, of Rogers, Field & Gentry, Kansas City, for respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment in favor of defendant at close of plaintiff's opening statement on trial for $50,000 damages for personal injuries. A prior appeal was found to be premature because the judgment appealed from did not dispose of all questions and parties. See Swindler v. Gross, Mo.Sup., 395 S.W.2d 109. The claim against codefendant Gross has now been dismissed and the issue between plaintiff and defendant Butler is now properly before us.
This cause of action arose out of injuries sustained by appellant Swindler while employed on the Gross farm in DeKalb County. On October 21, 1958, Swindler fell when a ladder on which he was standing slipped. He had climbed the ladder to observe the level of the contents of a bin into which feed processed on a Select-O-Mix Grinder was being conveyed. The petition charged negligence against the Grosses in failing to provide a safe place to work in that the floor in which the ladder had been placed was slick concrete, made more slippery by dust and feed particles which the grinding process produced. The petition also charged that the ladder was worn, cracked and broken, and otherwise unsafe.
The petition alleged that Butler was 'engaged in the business of manufacturing machinery and other products, and specifically engaged in the manufacture of a machine designated by said defendant as a Select-O-Mix Grinder, which machine was offered for sale to members of the public by the defendant * * *.'
Paragraph 6 of the petition stated plaintiff's claim against Butler as follows:
Butler filed a general denial to plaintiff's petition. The plaintiff propounded interrogatories to Butler. Butler's answers asserted that it sold the Select-O-Mix Grinder to the Grosses; that the grinder was ordered, at the request of Gross, from the manufacturer, Belle City Engineering Company; that it was delivered directly to Gross; that none of Butler's employees installed or assisted in the installation of the grinder and that it gave no direction or instruction regarding the installation or operation of the grinder.
In his voir dire examination, plaintiff's counsel stated that Butler 'did not manufacture but * * * sold and distributed and demonstrated a milling and grinding machine.' Butler's motion for a directed verdict on the basis of such statement alone was overruled. Thereafter, and prior to his opening statement, plaintiff asked leave to amend his petition to state in Paragraph 6 of his petition that Butler 'was negligent in the manufacture and design of the Select-O-Mix Grinder, or in selling said machine * * *.' Butler's objection to such amendment was sustained.
Plaintiff's counsel then proceeded to make his opening statement. The following references to Butler were made:
'* * * (I)n the spring of 1958 Mr. Gross installed what they called a Select-O-Mix Grinder, a machine that grinds and mixes different grains and elevates them to different bins, the bins being up overhead in the building which had been constructed for that purpose, and from these bins the ground and mixed grain comes down and goes into a wagon and it is then taken out and fed to cattle and hogs.
'They installed this grinder and it is about three to four feet square and about that high (indicating), and all these pipes ran into it.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Rodriguez v. Besser Co.
...alleged original defects themselves were neither dangerous nor a proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury. See Swindler v. Butler Manufacturing Company, 426 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.1968). Cf. Texas Metal Fabricating Company v. Northern Gas Products Corporation, 404 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1968). Such is n......
-
Long v. U.S. Brass Corp.
...Plus of Naugatuck, Inc., 216 Conn. 65, 579 A.2d 26, 33 (1990); Hebel, 65 Ill.Dec. 888, 442 N.E.2d at 203 (Illinois); Swindler v. Butler Mfg. Co., 426 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Mo.1968); and Zamora v. Mobil Oil Corp., 104 Wash.2d 199, 704 P.2d 584, 588 (1985). See also McLaughlin v. Michelin Tire Corp.......
-
Seasword v. Hilti, Inc.
...v. Leasure, 177 Md. 393, 411-412, 9 A.2d 572 (1939); Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Reeves, 486 So.2d 374, 378 (Miss.1986); Swindler v. Butler, 426 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Mo., 1968) (assumed doctrine applied); Comm'r State Ins. Fund v. City Chemical Corp., 290 N.Y. 64, 69-70, 48 N.E.2d 262 (1943); Rulan......
-
Hales v. Green Colonial, Inc.
...inadequacy of the change or alteration is the sole cause of the damage then the question is one of law for the court. Swindler v. Butler Mfg. Co., 426 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.1968). However, where the evidence is conflicting, it is generally a question for the jury to determine whether the defect is ......
-
Section 8.4 Directed Verdicts
...matter of law, constitute enough to go to the jury See also Zabol v. Lasky, 498 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Mo. 1973); Swindler v. Butler Mfg. Co., 426 S.W.2d 78, 81–82 (Mo. 1968); Hays v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 304 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo. 1957); Natoli v. Johnson, 490 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Mo. App. E.D. 1973). B......