Simpson v. Witte Iron Works Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) There can be no violation of the belt guarding statute until after notice by the factory inspector. R. S. 1899, sec. 6446; Williams v. Railroad, 233 Mo. 682; Foley v. Machine Works, 149 Mass. 297; Borck v. Bolt & Nut Co., Ill Mich. 133; Kerr v. Brass Mfg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) There can be no violation of the belt guarding statute until after notice by the factory inspector. R. S. 1899, sec. 6446; Williams v. Railroad, 233 Mo. 682; Foley v. Machine Works, 149 Mass. 297; Borck v. Bolt & Nut Co., Ill Mich. 133; Kerr v. Brass Mfg. Co., 155 Mich. 191. (2) Even before the Williams decision the Missouri courts held that in order to prove statutory negligence in failing to guard a belt, it must be affirmatively shown that the defendant had reasonable ground to anticipate injury to employees, either in…
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
*392SEPARATE OPINION, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART.
LAMM, C. J.
This case was assigned to me in division and came into Banc on a dissent. In Banc it was reassigned and written by Brother BoND. On what was considered in division the main question he adopts the view of the divisional opinion. In other matters on the scope of the Factory Act, he does not. For reasons apparent I refile my divisional opinion as a concurring one in part and a dissent in part.
In November, 1909, defendant was in the business of manufacturing engines in Kansas City. Plaintiff, for a fortnight in defendant’s…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Willy v. . MulledyNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- McRickard v. . FlintNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Pauley v. Steam Gauge & Lantern Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Arms v. AyerIllinois Supreme Court · 1901
- Buehner Chair Co. v. FeulnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.