Tayer v. York Ice Machinery Corp.

• Decision Date: 17 August 1938
• Docket Number: 34644
• Citation: 119 S.W.2d 240,342 Mo. 912
• Parties: Ethlyn Tayer v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

119 S.W.2d 240

342 Mo. 912

Ethlyn Tayer v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 34644

Supreme Court of Missouri

August 17, 1938

Rehearing Granted, Reported at 342 Mo. 912 at 927.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Brown Harris Judge; Opinion filed at September Term, 1937, December 17 1937; motion for rehearing filed; motion overruled May 3 1938; motion to grant a rehearing and to transfer to Court en Banc filed; motion overruled at May Term, 1938, August 17, 1938.

Reversed.

Davis & Davis, Oliver Blackinton and Watson, Ess, Groner, Barnett & Whittaker for appellant.

(1) The court erred in submitting the case to the jury, because there was no evidence that the cracking of the manifold was the proximate cause of the death of plaintiff's husband. McLeod v. Linde Air Products Co., 318 Mo. 397, 1 S.W.2d 122; Eversole v. Wabash Railroad Co., 249 Mo. 523; McManamee v. Railroad Co., 135 Mo. 440; Martin v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 19 S.W.2d 470; Logan v. Wabash Railroad Co., 96 Mo.App. 461; King v. National Oil Co., 81 Mo.App. 155; Henry v. St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co., 76 Mo. 288; Haviland v. Ry. Co., 172 Mo. 106; Ill. State Trust Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 319 Mo. 608, 5 S.W.2d 368; Johnson v. Term. Railroad Assn., 320 Mo. 884, 8 S.W.2d 891; Williams v. Wiedman, 97 N.W. 966; Childs v. Standard Oil Co., 182 N.W. 1000; Cavanaugh v. Centerville Block Coal Co., 109 N.W. 303. (2) The court erred in submitting the case to the jury because, there being no contractual relation between plaintiff's husband and defendant, defendant owed him no duty. Heizer v. Kingsland & Douglass Mfg. Co., 110 Mo. 605; Tipton v. Barnard & Leas Mfg. Co., 302 Mo. 162; Roddy v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 104 Mo. 234; M. K. & T. Railroad Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 70 P. 358; Foster v. Ford Motor Co., 246 P. 945; Windram Mfg. Co. v. Boston Blacking Co., 239 Mass. 123, 131 N.E. 454; Amason v. Ford Motor Co., 80 F.2d 265. (3) The court erred in submitting the case to the jury, because there was no evidence that defendant was negligent. (a) Mr. Manns' opinion that the crack in the manifold was due to flaws and inherent weakness therein was not upon a subject within the range of his knowledge as an expert. Brands v. St. Louis Car Co., 213 Mo. 698; Wolff Shirt Co. v. Frankenthal, 96 Mo.App. 307; Graney v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 157 Mo. 666; Zackwik v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 225 S.W. 135; Irwin v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 30 S.W.2d 56; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 620; Epperson v. Midwest Refining Co., 22 F.2d 622; Conley v. Portland Gas Lt. Co., 58 A. 61; Swengel v. LaSalle County Carbon Coal Co., 182 Ill.App. 623. (b) The opinion that the crack developed because of flaws and inherent weakness of the manifold had no probative force. 22 C. J. 733; Graney v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 157 Mo. 682; Miller v. Miller, 277 S.W. 922; Roark v. Pullam, 207 Mo.App. 429; Ellis v. Brand, 176 Mo.App. 390; Neal v. Caldwell, 34 S.W.2d 110; Kimmie v. Terminal Railroad Co., 66 S.W.2d 565; Berkemeier v. Reller, 37 S.W.2d 431; Loehr v. Starke, 56 S.W.2d 772; Dillard v. Johnson, 79 So. 106; In re Flint, 177 P. 451; Lloyd v. Rush, 273 Ill. 489, 113 N.E. 122; Ramseyer v. Dennis, 116 N.E. 417; Schrodt v. Schrodt, 181 Ky. 174, 203 S.W. 1051; San Antonio Water Supply Co. v. Castle, 199 S.W. 300; Webb v. Reynolds, 207 S.W. 914; Hackley-Phelps B. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 162 N.W. 921; Larson v. Wahl, 223 P. 19; Norfolk & W. Railroad Co. v. Hall, 49 F.2d 692; Export Cooperage Co. v. Ramsey, 202 S.W. 468; Bray v. Cove Irrigation District, 284 P. 539; Norfolk & W. Railroad Co. v. McCoy, 77 S.W.2d 392; Insurance Co. of North America v. Creech Drug Store, 94 S.W.2d 654; Kline v. Kleenan, 185 N.Y.S. 113; Adams & Burke Co. v. Cook, 118 N.W. 662; Murrell v. Charleston, etc., Railroad Co., 105 S.E. 350; Haygood v. Clark Co., 107 S.E. 379; Lane v. Happ Bros. Co., 162 S.E. 519; Dougherty v. Dougherty, 112 S.E. 454; Securities Inv. Co. v. White, 91 S.W.2d 587; Bloecher & Schaaf v. Pa. Railroad Co., 160 A. 281; Tennis Coal Co. v. Sackett, 190 S.W. 130; Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Ramey, 53 S.W.2d 560; Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, 262 P. 59; Martin v. Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co., 51 P. 376; Mattson v. Griffin Transfer Co., 155 P. 392; Balkema v. Grolimund, 159 P. 127; Esenwein v. Esenwein, 167 A. 350. (4) The court erred in submitting the case to the jury, because there was no evidence showing what caused the death of plaintiff's husband. Hendrick v. Kauffman, 66 S.W.2d 985; Biddlecom v. Nelson Grain Co., 178 S.W. 750; Warner v. St. Louis & Meramec Railroad Co., 178 Mo. 125; Whitmore v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 219 Mo.App. 294; Bent v. Lewis, 88 Mo. 462. (5) The court erred in submitting the case to the jury, because plaintiff's husband assumed the risk. Labatt's Master & Servant (2 Ed.), sec. 1176, p. 3135; Flack v. Atchison, etc., Railroad Co., 285 Mo. 50; Gleeson v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 94 Mo. 206; Roberts v. Mo. & Kan. Tel. Co., 166 Mo. 383; Henson v. Armour Packing Co., 113 Mo.App. 621; Arnold v. May Dept. Stores, 85 S.W.2d 748; Stein v. Battenfeld, 327 Mo. 804, 39 S.W.2d 345; 5 C. J. 1413; 45 C. J. 1042-3; Indiana Nat. Gas Co. v. O'Brien, 65 N.E. 918; Fillingham v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 573.

Stubbs, McKenzie & Stubbs for respondent.

(1) The cracking of the manifold was the proximate cause of the injury which resulted in the death of plaintiff's husband. The question of proximate cause was for the jury and the jury resolved that question in favor of the plaintiff. The court committed no error in submitting the case to the jury. McLeod v. Linde Air Products Co., 318 Mo. 397, 1 S.W.2d 122; McPherson v. Buick, 217 N.Y. 382; Devlin v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 470; Johnson v. Cadillac, 261 F. 878; Mastin v. Levagood, 47 Kan. 36; Malone v. Jones, 92 Kan. 708; Keep v. Natl. Tube Co., 154 F. 121; Smith v. St. J. L. H. & P. Co., 310 Mo. 469, 276 S.W. 609; Dean v. Ry. Co., 156 Mo.App. 634, 137 S.W. 603; Smith v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co., 52 Wash. 350, 100 P. 747; Erie Railroad Co. v. Caldwell, 264 F. 947; Daneschocky v. Sieben, 193 S.W. 966, 195 Mo.App. 470; Harrison v. Elec. Light Co., 195 Mo. 629, 93 S.W. 951; Buckner v. Horse & Mule Co., 221 Mo. 711, 120 S.W. 766; Obermeyer v. Logeman, 229 Mo. 97, 111, 129 S.W. 209; Hoepper v. Southern Hotel Co., 142 Mo. 388; Fishburn v. Railroad Co., 127 Iowa 492; Jacobs v. Adams Elec. Co., 97 S.W.2d 489; Slinkard v. Lamb Const. Co., 212 S.W. 61, Id., 225 S.W. 352; Smith v. Twin State Gas & El. Co., 144 A. 57. (2) The defendant did owe a duty to plaintiff's husband not upon contract, nor because of contractual relations between defendant and plaintiff's husband, but because of the duty which the law imposed upon defendant, and imposes upon everyone to avoid acts in their nature dangerous to the lives of others. The ammonia compressor sold by defendant to John Morrell & Company was a machine, which being used for the purpose for which it was intended and for which it was purchased, if defectively constructed, or if constructed of defective materials, would be imminently dangerous to human life; and so is clearly within the exception to the general rule. McLeod v. Linde Air Products Co., 318 Mo. 397, 1 S.W.2d 122; McPherson v. Buick, 217 N.Y. 382; Devlin v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 470; Johnson v. Cadillac, 261 F. 878; Mastin v. Levagood, 47 Kan. 36; Malone v. Jones, 92 Kan. 708; Erie Railroad Co. v. Caldwell, 264 F. 974. (3) There was sufficient evidence of negligence. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the break or crack in the manifold was due to flaws in the manifold -- inherent weakness in the manifold and defective material. McLeod v. Linde Air Products Co., 318 Mo. 397, 1 S.W.2d 122; McPherson v. Buick, 217 N.Y. 382; Devlin v. Smith, 89 N.Y. 470; Johnson v. Cadillac, 261 F. 878; Erie Railroad Co. v. Caldwell, 264 F. 947; Mastin v. Levagood, 47 Kan. 36. Furthermore the accident and injury being shown, general negligence being pleaded, plaintiff is entitled to the presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa liquitur. Stolle v. Anheuser-Busch, 271 S.W. 497; Payne v. Rome Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 73 S.W. 1087, 10 Ga.App. 762; Dail v. Taylor, 151 N.C. 287; Cashwell v. Bottling Works, 174 N.C. 324; Waters-Pierce Co. v. Desselms, 212 U.S. 179; Wellington v. Downer Co., 104 Mass. 64; Wiser v. Holzman, 33 Wash. 87; Kapros v. Pierce Oil Corp., 25 S.W.2d 782. The plaintiff did not lose the benefit of the presumption under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur by having introduced evidence of negligence. Price v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 119 S.W. 932; Gibson v. Wells, 258 S.W. 1; Conduitt v. Trenton Gas & Elec. Co., 31 S.W.2d 21; Glasco Elec. Co. v. Union Elec. Co., 61 S.W.2d 955; Powell v. St. J. Ry. Co., 81 S.W.2d 957; Williams v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 85 S.W.2d 624; Timmons v. Kurn, 100 S.W.2d 952. (4) The case was tried by both plaintiff and defendant upon the theory that plaintiff's husband died from injuries sustained from the explosion of ammonia gas and this court will adopt the theory upon which the case was tried in the circuit court. Taylor & Sons v. K. C. Southern, 213 Mo. 715, 112 S.W. 59; Williams v. A. T. & S. F. Ry., 136 S.W. 306; Degonia v. Ry. Co., 224 Mo. 588, 123 S.W. 807; Hof v. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 470, 111 S.W. 1166; Stewart v. Omaha Loan & Trust Co., 222 S.W. 810. (5) The question of assumption of risk is one of fact to be determined by the jury from such knowledge and all other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence. George v. St. L.-S. F., 125 S.W. 210; Huhn v. Railroad Co., 92 Mo. 440; Dale v. Railroad Co., 63 Mo. 455; Mahaney v. Railroad Co., 108 Mo. 191; Omellia v. Railroad Co., 115 Mo. 205; Hamilton v. Rich Hill Min. Co., 108 Mo. 364; Soeder v. Railroad Co., 100 Mo. 673; Warner v. Railroad Co., 62 Mo.App. 184; Waldhier v. Railroad Co., 87...