Troutman v. East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co.

Decision Date10 August 1920
Docket NumberNo 2483.,2483.
PartiesTROUTMAN v. EASY ST. LOUIS COTTON OIL CO. et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.

Action by E. M. Troutman against the East St. Louis Cotton Oil Company, a corporation, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for appellants.

C. G. Shepard and S. J. Jeffress; both of Caruthersville, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiff in this case was severely injured by reason of his hand and arm coming in contact with a revolving saw in a cotton gin operated by the defendants. Plaintiff was employed in operating the gin and his work was to look after and keep the gin stands going. One of the gin stands became clogged with damp cotton, as not infrequently happened, and this accident occurred in plaintiff's efforts to clean out the damp cotton and start the gin to running. To do this he raised by means of a lever what is called the gin breast, weighing some 300 to 400 pounds. This permitted him to reach under and remove the obstructing cotton first with a stick and then with his hand. All this was part of his duty and was done in the regular way, unless it was the stopping of the revolving saws concerning which there is a dispute. No one saw the accident or knows just how it occurred except plaintiff. His version of the accident is that he raised the gin breast, stopped the machinery by raising the idler from the drive belt, and removed part of the obstructing cotton with a stick; that he then reached under with his hand to remove the balance of the cotton, and while doing so the gin breast for some reason fell down, pushing his arm and hand against the saws, then not in motion; that the jar of the machinery caused the idler, used to tighten or loosen the drive belt, to drop down on this belt, tightening it sufficient to start the machinery, and the saws cut off his fingers and mutilated his arm. His cries brought help, and the workmen who came to his assistance found him caught in the machinery; the gin breast being down and the revolving saws then stopped.

The plaintiff by his petition attributes his injury to defendant's negligence both in respect to the falling of the gin breast which forced his hand against the saws and held it there and in respect to the falling of the idler onto the drive belt whereby the revolving saws were put in motion. Negligent defects in the machinery and appliances are alleged to have caused both of these. We think, however, that it is apparent that the latter ground of negligence is the one of most importance, since the starting of the machinery was the proximate or immediate cause of plaintiff's injury. The falling of the gin breast merely furnished the condition which made the starting of the saws more certain to cause injury to plaintiff. It may be true that except for the falling of the gin breast the plaintiff would not have been injured, though it is not improbable that,. had the saws been put in motion unexpectedly while plaintiff was removing the cotton with his hand in this narrow space, his hand would have been caught regardless of the falling of the gin breast. In fact, the defendant insists that plaintiff did not, as he says he did, stop this machinery before attempting to remove the obstructing cotton, and defendant's main defense was that plaintiff attempted to remove this cotton without stopping the machinery and that to do so was obviously dangerous. It is apparent that with the saws not in motion the falling of the gin breast would cause little if any injury, and none of the injury sued for since plaintiff sues only for the cutting of his hand and arm by the revolving saws. We think therefore that we may largely eliminate the question of defendant's negligence, if any, in respect to the falling of the gin breast.

As to the Idler, the plaintiff's petition reads:

"Plaintiff further states that defendants did not have an adequate and proper method of stopping the operation, or the revolving of the gin saws when the same became choked with cotton, and it became necessary to clean said gin in order that the proper work of ginning might be done; that the only method of stopping said gins was by raising an idler or tightener from the belt running from the main driving shaft of said gin to said gin stands; that the method used for raising said idler or tightener from said gin belt was wholly inadequate and insufficient, and was so negligently kept in repair that if said idler or tightener received a jar, as that of the gin breast falling down, would permit the idler or tightener to press down on the gin belt, thereby forcing said gin saws to revolve with much force and power so as to injure the hands or limbs of the party operating said gin should they be caught therein."

The plaintiff further charged, and his evidence shows, that on this occasion when the gin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Hough v. Rock Island Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1936
    ...282 S.W. 170; Webster v. International Shoe Co., 18 S.W. (2d) 131; Jackson v. Railroad Co., 171 Mo. App. 430, 156 S.W. 1005; Troutman v. Oil Co., 224 S.W. 1014. (a) The error of the first element is not cured by the second, which says that the facts which the jury must find must include all......
  • Tash v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Noviembre 1934
    ...other ground is without evidence to support it as plaintiff has merely been required to prove more than necessary." Troutman v. Oil Co., 224 S.W. 1014; Rigg v. Railroad Co., 212 S.W. 878; Chambers v. Hinds, 233 S.W. 949; Webster v. International Shoe Co., 18 S.W. (2d) 133; Pinnell v. Railro......
  • Tash v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Noviembre 1934
    ... ... to prove more than necessary." Troutman v. Oil ... Co., 224 S.W. 1014; Rigg v. Railroad Co., 212 ... S.W. 878; Chambers v. Hinds, ... These ... twenty-one tracks are numbered from east to west, 1 to 21 ... respectively. The same space or distance between the tracks, ... with aisles ... ...
  • Hough v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1936
    ...Co., 282 S.W. 170; Webster v. International Shoe Co., 18 S.W.2d 131; Jackson v. Railroad Co., 171 Mo.App. 430, 156 S.W. 1005; Troutman v. Oil Co., 224 S.W. 1014. (a) The error the first element is not cured by the second, which says that the facts which the jury must find must include all t......
  • 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