Walker v. Sheffield Steel Corp.
Citation | 27 S.W.2d 44,224 Mo.App. 849 |
Parties | STANLEY WALKER, RESPONDENT, v. SHEFFIELD STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLANT |
Decision Date | 27 January 1930 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Willard P Hall, Judge.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE DISMISSED.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
Atwood Wickersham, Hill & Chilcott for respondent.
Lathrop Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau for appellant.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This action, begun on February 7, 1927, is for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $ 3000 and defendant has appealed.
The amended petition, which was filed on April 24, 1929, alleges that plaintiff, while an employee of the defendant at its manufacturing plant located in Kansas City, was injured on December 4, 1926, by the slipping of an apparatus with which he was working, described in the petition as a crane or derrick having in connection therewith a spreader, lift or carrier, by which apparatus various sheets of metal and other material were moved from place to place in the plant; that when said apparatus had been once attached to such sheets of material it was locked to the same and would ordinarily not become detached therefrom until released at the proper time and place; that in this instance the apparatus failed to remain attached to the material, slipped, came loose and caught and crushed plaintiff's right foot, ankle and leg against a nearby wall. Recovery was sought on the res ipsa loquitur theory.
The amended petition further alleges that:
"At said time and place said defendant had more than ten employees regularly employed and failed and neglected to have its entire liability for injuries to plaintiff and its other employees insured with some insurance carrier authorized to insure such liability in the State of Missouri, and had not satisfied the Workmen's Compensation Commission of the State of Missouri of its ability to carry the whole or any part of such liability without insurance and that said Workmen's Compensation Commission had not authorized the defendant to carry the whole or any part of its liability insurance upon plaintiff and its other employees or to act as such self-insurer and that defendant failed and neglected to report to the Workmen's Compensation Commission of the State of Missouri said injuries to plaintiff and failed and neglected to pay to the State of Missouri the tax required to be paid by employers who insure their own liability or become self-insurers of their own liability to their employees for injuries received by such employees while employed in the service of defendant and that by reason of the defendant's failure so to do, plaintiff elects to sue the defendant as though defendant had rejected said Workmen's Compensation Act."
This allegation was not contained in the original petition and to that petition defendant filed a general denial.
On May 29, 1929, defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction and an answer to the amended petition, the substance of which was that the court had no jurisdiction over the cause of action or the parties because, on the date of the alleged accident, the parties were under the jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The plea to the jurisdiction was overruled and the case went to trial upon that part of the answer of the defendant which went to the merits.
At the close of all of the testimony defendant offered an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and also declarations of law to the effect that defendant did not "fail to comply" with section 25 of the Workmen's Compensation Act within the meaning of the sentence in said section which contains those words, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction because, on the date of the accident, the parties were under the jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The court refused to give the instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and the declarations of law requested by defendant.
The following stipulation was filed in the cause: (Only the material parts are set forth herein).
It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to sustain defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, and its demurrer to the evidence and in refusing its declarations of law referred to. The material parts of the Compensation Law (see Laws of 1925, p. 375) having to do with this controversy are as follows:
Section 2 of the act provides in part as follows:
Paragraph "a" section 4 of the act provides as follows:
"A major employer shall mean an employer who has more than ten employees regularly employed."
Paragraph "d" of said section provides as follows:
The material parts of section 25 of the act provide as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wors v. Tarlton
... ... 82; State ex ... rel. v. Railroad, 246 Mo. 512; State ex rel. Walker, 326 ... Mo. 1233; City of Hannibal v. Tele. Co., 31 Mo.App ... 23; ... law. R. S. Mo. 1929, sec. 3309; Walker v. Sheffield Steel ... Corp., 224 Mo.App. 849, 275 S.W.2d 44. (4) If 3323 is ... ...
-
Gardner v. Stout
... ... Barnes Hospital, 227 ... Mo.App. 1055, 55 S.W.2d 319; Walker v. Sheffield Steel ... Corp., 224 Mo.App. 849, 27 S.W.2d 44. When the ... ...