Harbacek v. Fulton Iron Works Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Frank Landivehr, Judge. (1) Defendant’s foreman was bound to know or at least should have anticipated that particles of iron chipped by plaintiff from castings while in the performance of his duty were apt to strike him in the eyes, unless his eyes were protected, and it was the duty of defendant to furnish plaintiff with goggles, the only known appliance, to protect his eyes. 3 Thompson on Negligence, sec. 3969; Curtwright v.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Frank Landivehr, Judge. (1) Defendant’s foreman was bound to know or at least should have anticipated that particles of iron chipped by plaintiff from castings while in the performance of his duty were apt to strike him in the eyes, unless his eyes were protected, and it was the duty of defendant to furnish plaintiff with goggles, the only known appliance, to protect his eyes. 3 Thompson on Negligence, sec. 3969; Curtwright v. Ruehlmann, 181 Mo. App. 557; Herdler v. Stove & Range Co., 136 Mo. 3; Smith v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 67 N. Y. Supp. 533,…
1Opinion of the CourtElder, J.
This is an action brought by plaintiff to recover damages for an injury to his eye, sustained while employed by defendant Pulton Iron Works Company. James B. Duncan, general foreman of the company is joined as a defendant.
At the close of the evidence in behalf of plaintiff, upon the request of both defendants the trial court gave as to each defendant an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, the same being as follows: “At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court instructs the jury that under the law and the evidence your verdict must be in favor of defendant.” Plaintiff…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fish v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Chrismer v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Patrum v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Morris v. PryorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- Wexler v. SalisburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schaum v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Dietzman v. St. Louis Screw Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Guthrie v. GillespieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Howell v. DowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1967
- Johnson v. Wichita Valley Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.