Young v. Shickle, Harrison & Howard Iron Co.

• Citation: 15 S.W. 771,103 Mo. 324
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Decision Date: 09 March 1891
• Parties: YOUNG v. SHICKLE, HARRISON & HOWARD IRON CO.

15 S.W. 771

103 Mo. 324

YOUNG v. SHICKLE, HARRISON & HOWARD IRON CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 9, 1891.

MASTER AND SERVANT — INJURIES TO SERVANT — PLEADING.

In an action by a servant for personal injuries the petition alleged that plaintiff was at work on a platform over which was suspended a rope, along which worked a "traveler," the movements of which were regulated by a person standing on the platform and pulling a signal rope; that the platform had insufficient guard-rails, and on the day of the injury was so obstructed by materials piled on it as to allow only a narrow passage-way; that it became necessary for another employe engaged in a different department to use one of the signal ropes; that such employe, in passing along the passage-way, accidentally ran against and knocked plaintiff under the guard-rails to the ground below; that defendant was negligent in the construction of the platform, and in allowing it to be obstructed; and that "by reason of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid plaintiff has been damaged," etc. Held, on demurrer, that the petition stated a cause of action. SHERWOOD, C. J., dissenting.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge.

M. F. Taylor and F. M. Estes, for appellant. T. A. Post, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of iron, and this is a suit by an employe to recover damages for personal injuries. When the case came on for trial, the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which objection was sustained, and the plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave, etc. The plaintiff states in his petition that he was at work on a platform, over which was suspended a wire cable; that a mechanical appliance known as a "traveler" worked along and over the wire rope; that the movements of the traveler were regulated by means of a signal given by a person standing on the platform and pulling a rope; that the sounding of a signal was an intimation of danger, and to be careful; that the stations for the signal ropes were a great distance apart; that the platform had insufficient guard-rails around it; that on the day of the injury the platform had been allowed to become so blocked with material and débris as to allow only a narrow passage-way for persons to pass over and along the same; that it became necessary for another employe of defendant, engaged in a different department of work, to use one of the signal ropes to sound an alarm; that said employe, in passing along the narrow passage-way to reach the signal rope," accidentally ran against and struck forcibly the plaintiff, and knocked him under the guard-rails and off the platform to the ground below," breaking his shoulder, etc.; "that the defendant was careless and negligent in the construction of said platform, in not providing it with sufficient guard-rails; that said platform was not suitable to carry on the work in which plaintiff was engaged by reason of the fact that defendant had negligently allowed a large quantity of material of various kinds to be piled thereon; that the signal stations above mentioned were too far apart, necessitating a quick and hurried movement on the part of the operative, whose duty it was to look after the signals, in order to reach the ropes in time to sound the alarm; wherefore, and...