Wilkinson v. Andriano Bottling Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1911
• Citation: 136 S.W. 720,154 Mo. App. 563
• Parties: WILKINSON v. ANDRIANO BOTTLING CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

136 S.W. 720

154 Mo. App. 563

WILKINSON v. ANDRIANO BOTTLING CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 3, 1911.

1. MASTER AND SERVANT (§§ 101, 102)—OBLIGATION OF MASTER.

A master who conducts his business in the usual way without any guard to machines, other than that to protect the men operating them, need not procure the very best guard obtainable, nor a guard recently invented, and which has not come into general use.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT (§§ 101, 102)—OBLIGATION OF MASTER—SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK.

A master must use reasonable care and precaution to furnish his servants with a reasonably safe place in which to work, and whatever is according to general practice is reasonably safe.

3. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 236)—INJURY TO SERVANT—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

A servant at work in bottling effervescent drinks was injured by flying glass striking his hands, on the explosion of a bottle attempted to be filled by a fellow workman. The master furnished the servant with leather gloves to protect his hands, but he did not wear them, and had he done so the injury would have been insignificant. Held, that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; C. A. Mosman, Judge.

Action by Edward O. Wilkinson against the Andriano Bottling Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Allen, Gabbert, Mitchell & Martin, for appellant. Kendall B. Randolph, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

This is an action to recover damages plaintiff alleges he sustained while in defendant's employ. This injury occurred on the 3d of September, 1909.

The defendant company at the time was engaged in the business of bottling soda water, seltzer, ginger ale, and other effervescing drinks; that in order to conduct its business it used bottling machines for the purpose of bottling its products, putting them in small glass bottles; that gas and other materials used in the manufacture of such products were subject to great pressure while being filled in the bottles, which at times caused some of them, especially defective ones, to burst, and that bottles exploded daily. In the bottling process an upright machine about three feet high was used, to which was attached a lever or treadle which forced the stoppers into the mouth of the bottle. The man working the machine stands up, so that the bottle when it is in the place for being filled sits about even with his waist. In forcing the stoppers, 25 or more pounds pressure was used. If a bottle was defective, the amount of pressure used would cause it to fly to pieces and scatter about.

On the occasion mentioned, two machines were in use, standing within a few feet of each other. Plaintiff was at work on one of them, and another employé by the name of Ward was at work on the other, and while he was filling a bottle it exploded under the pressure, and a piece of glass struck plaintiff on the hand, inflicting a severe and permanent injury. There were guards on one side of the machines which sufficiently protected the person operating them, but afforded no protection to others around about. The plaintiff seeks to recover on the ground of negligence of defendant in failing to furnish him with a safe place in which to do his work; that is to say, in failing to provide sufficient guards for said machines.

The machines were guarded as was customary in like establishments. There was no witness who was able to state that he ever saw any guard in use in similar establishments, other than the one described for the protection of the persons operating them; but a circular of a certain manufacturer was introduced, with cuts showing, we presume, as the circular is not included in the abstract, that there was such a guard, and the plaintiff was allowed to explain its construction. According to the explanation, it seems that there was a much better guard...