The Atchison v. Weikal

Decision Date10 February 1906
Docket Number14,493
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesTHE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. H. C. WEIKAL

Decided January, 1906.

Error from Kingman district court; PRESTON B. GILLETT, judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

William R. Smith, O. J. Wood, and Alfred A. Scott, for plaintiff in error.

C. W Fairchild, for defendant in error; J. F. Conly, of counsel.

OPINION

Per Curiam

While H. C. Weikal was helping Walter Moyer, a machinist, to furrow out a key-seat in a steel shaft of hoisting machinery at a coal-chute he was struck in the eye by a chip which flew from the chisel, and which destroyed the sight of the eye. It occurred in the night-time, while Weikal was holding a torch for the machinist. He charged that suitable light was not furnished; that the tools used were defective; that the machinist was negligent in the use of the tools; that the place was not a suitable one in which to work; and that he was not warned of the danger to which he was exposed.

The plaintiff's testimony does not establish liability. The machinist was competent, and there was no defect in the tools used. It was a proper place to do the work, unless the light was insufficient, and it does not appear that the absence of better light affected the case. Weikal relied principally upon the failure of his employer to instruct or inform him of the danger of working in that place. This omission cannot under the circumstances be regarded as culpable negligence of the railway company. He was a young man of intelligence and experience who had worked at that place for some time, and had been a helper for machinists for months, and the fact that chips or particles of steel would fly from a chisel could not have escaped his observation. In fact the testimony presented by him was to the effect that in cutting steel with a chisel chips fly in every direction. It is claimed that he did not appreciate the danger of working in that particular place at that time. He had worked on that job, however, the afternoon preceding the night of the injury. During the afternoon he used the sledge-hammer and struck the chisel which was held by the machinist most of the time. At night Moyer used the chisel and small hammer while Weikal stood behind him with the torch. The position occupied by Weikal at night was no closer to the work nor to danger than the one he was in during the day. The chips are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Crader v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 3 Marzo 1914
    ...L'Houx v. Construction Co., 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800; Railway v. Phinney, 38 Ind.App. 546; Railway v. Ramp, 70 S.W. 568; Railway v. Weikel, 73 Kan. 763; Gillaspie v. Iron Works, 76 Kan. 70; v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 562; Mathis v. Stock Yards Co., 185 Mo. 434; Harris v. Railroad, 146 Mo.App. 542. (......
  • Ohio Valley Ry. Co. v. Copley
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 15 Mayo 1914
    ... ... or steel flying from hammers, chisels, punches, etc. See ... Lynn v. Glucose Sugar Ref. Co., 128 Iowa 501, 104 ... N.W. 577 (hammer); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v ... Weikal, 73 Kan. 763, 84 P. 720 (chisel); Gillaspie v ... United Iron Works, 76 Kan. 70, 90 P. 760 ("set" ... used as ... ...
  • The Missouri v. Quinlan
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1908
    ... ... safety, and was not required to be on guard against the use ... of a defective sledge ... In the ... case of Railway Co. v. Weikal , 73 Kan. 763, 84 P ... 720, it was held the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury ... from flying pieces of steel chipped off in furrowing out a ... ...
  • Parker v. City of Wichita
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Julio 1939
    ... ... v. Bancord, 66 Kan ... 81, Syl. par. 2, 71 P. 253; Walker v. Scott, 67 Kan ... 814, 64 P. 615; Railway Co. v. Weikal, 73 Kan. 763, ... 84 P. 720; Davis v. City of El Dorado, 126 Kan. 153, ... 267 P. 7. See, also, the discussion in the recent case of ... Cheek v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT