Very v. Willi

• Decision Date: 21 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19609.,19609.
• Citation: 293 S.W. 500
• Parties: VERY v. WILLI.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

293 S.W. 500

VERY v. WILLI.

No. 19609.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 21, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action for personal injuries brought by David Charles Very against Peter Willi. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geers & Geers, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Carlyle J. Dunn and John B. Reno, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant in an action for personal injuries, and the defendant appeals.

Plaintiff, according to his amended petition, was a mechanic and in the employ of the defendant as an automobile repairman, and on November 6, 1924, whilst repairing a Dorris truck belonging to the defendant (the hood of which had been removed), plaintiff, while the defendant was in the driver's seat at the steering wheel of the truck, left the seat next to the defendant where he had been sitting, walked around to the left side of the motor on the truck, intending to disconnect the oil line running from the pump to the indicator on the dash of the truck, to ascertain whether the oil was circulating. This type of Dorris truck had no fan behind the radiator, but instead had a combination flywheel and fan to the rear of the motor and about 2% to 3 inches back of the cylinder block and in line with the front face of the dash.

Plaintiff's petition alleges that this combination flywheel and fan was idling at the time he started to take hold of the said oil line with a pair of pliers which he held in his right hand, but while in the act of doing so the defendant increased the flow of gasoline into the motor, thereby increasing the speed of the motor and the combination flywheel and fan attached thereto, and the rapid revolutions of the fan created so strong a suction that it drew plaintiff's right hand into, upon, and against said combination flywheel and fan, resulting in the injuries to him.

The answer was a general denial. Plaintiff's testimony tended to support the allegations of his petition to the effect that he stepped out of the driver's cab on the truck, went to the left-hand side of the motor, where he was going to disconnect the oil line; that the defendant accelerated the speed of the motor while plaintiff's hand was 3 or 4 inches in front of and near the top of the flywheel, causing the flywheel to draw his right hand into it and injure same. Plaintiff testified that the rapid revolutions of the flywheel caused a suction toward the flywheel great enough to draw a hand into it; that the motor, when idling, made from 100 to 300 revolutions per minute, but that when the motor was speeded up by defendant at the time plaintiff had his hand drawn into the fan, the fan made perhaps 1,450 revolutions per minute. Plaintiff, without objection, was permitted to testify that it was safe to thrust your hand in front of the motor while it was idling, but that it was not safe to do so when the motor was speeded up.

Plaintiff adduced a witness by the name of Griffith, an engineer familiar with the type of motor and combination fan and flywheel used in this type of Dorris truck. He testified that the motor while idling would drop down to a few hundred revolutions per minute, but that if the throttle was increased to half speed for a minute or so the motor would attain a speed of 2,000 to 2,500 revolutions per minute with no load on. He further testified that the suction created by the flywheel and fan revolving at the rate of 2,000 to 2,500 revolutions per minute would be seven or eight times as great as when the motor was idling; that when the motor was idling you could hold your hand right up against the fan without any danger, but that the suction created by the revolutions of the fan when the motor was speeded up would be sufficient to draw the hand into it where the hand was four inches in front of the fan and about on a level with the top thereof. The witness stated further that at such a point the suction is about as "great as anywhere on that particular wheel."

The defendant himself testified that after plaintiff had done some work on the truck they drove the truck a short distance to test it out; that when the defendant brought the truck to a standstill in his yard he did not stop the motor of the truck, and that the plaintiff, noticing that the oil was not flowing through the glass gauge on the dash, got out of the cab of the truck, walked around to the left side and put his hand under the hood and was injured; that he, the defendant, did not know at the time what plaintiff intended to do; and that the motor of the truck was idling all of the time after the truck came to a standstill in the yard until plaintiff was injured, and at no time did he increase the speed of the motor. The defendant testified that with the motor racing he had placed his hand immediately in front of the fan and that there was no suction created thereby as would tend to draw his hand into the fan.

Louis H. Masson, a witness for defendant, testified he was service manager of the Dorris Motor Company, and had been supervising the repair work for them for 6 or 7 years and was thoroughly familiar with the mechanical parts of the Dorris trucks of the model in question. He was permitted to testify that he had experimented by holding his hand within an inch of the fan while the engine and fan were racing, and that in that position he felt very little draw upon his hand from the fan.

Clarence Fischer testified for defendant that he was an automobile mechanic and familiar with the type of Dorris truck in question, and he was permitted to state that with the motor racing he had held his hand in front of and within one inch of the fan, and he felt no perceptible draw.

As we read plaintiff's petition, it charges that his injuries were due to defendant's negligence in accelerating the revolutions of the motor and thereby the revolutions of the combination flywheel and fan, resulting in...