Omans v. Hammond Packing Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Ho». L. J. Eastin, Judge. (1) Plaintiff was a man of more than ordinary intelligence. He was “college bred.” He knew too well how to construct a theory of a “case for damages;’’’that is, to claim that he was ignorant of the nature and effect of the substance he was required to use in removing grease and dirt from wood and iron implements.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Ho». L. J. Eastin, Judge. (1) Plaintiff was a man of more than ordinary intelligence. He was “college bred.” He knew too well how to construct a theory of a “case for damages;’’’that is, to claim that he was ignorant of the nature and effect of the substance he was required to use in removing grease and dirt from wood and iron implements. It is true, he swears he did not know; but be could with little more effrontery have said be did not know hot water would scald. Berry v. White Lead, etc., 51 N. T. S. 602; Bollington v. Louisville, etc., (Ky.), 100 S.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Plaintiff was an employee of defendant, working under direction of one of its foremen. His work consisted of carrying “provision racks for freight cars and washing out the ears.” While so engaged he received an injury to one of his eyes, which he charges was caused by defendant’s negligence, and for which he instituted this action. He recovered judgment in the trial court.
It appears that a substance known as caustic soda was used by. defendant in the cleaning or washing of cars in which its meat products were shipped, and that a part of plaintiff’s service was to wash such cars. That the soda…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ruchinsky v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Pulley v. Standard Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cunningham v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911