Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Construction Co.

Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Construction Co.

173 S.W. 1081, 188 Mo. App. 105, 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 56
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 30, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 173 S.W. 1081 (Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Ambursen Hydraulic Construction Co., 173 S.W. 1081, 188 Mo. App. 105, 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinions

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant for $7500 on account of personal injuries alleged' to have been sustained by him while in the employ of the defendant.

Plaintiff in the original petition sought to recover damages on the charge that defendant negligently and carelessly failed to cover certain machinery consisting of cogwheels and shafts on a boat used on White river in the construction of a dam several miles up the river from Forsyth in Taney county, Missouri. The suit was brought against several defendants. A first amended petition was filed against three defendants, not necessary to be discussed. A second amended petition was filed consisting of two counts, one of the defendants named in the original petition and in the first amended petition being dropped. The first count charged negligence in failing to securely guard certain machinery. The second count sought recovery on the common-law liability of defendants in failing to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which "to work, requiring him to perform duties at a place near the cogwheels where a hole in the floor of the boat, called a scuttle hole, was left open with no covering, alleging that owing to the position the plaintiff was required to assume in performing his duties by reason of the scuttle hole being left open he was subjected to unnecessary risk and hazard amounting to negligence on the part of his master. The third amended petition was filed against this defendant (appellant) and one other, the first count thereof going to the failure to securely guard the cog[112]*112wheels and the second count proceeding* on the common-law liability of the defendant for failure to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to do his work.

At the conclusion of the evidence the plaintiff dismissed his suit as to all the defendants- except the Ambnrsen Hydraulic Construction Company, and also dismissed as to the first count of his third amended petition. The judgment, therefore, is based on the second count of the third amended petition wherein the charge of negligence is that defendant negligently and carelessly failed and neglected to provide a covering for the scuttle or pit on the inside of the boat on which covering plaintiff might have stood in safety while engaged in oiling bearings on the shaft; that he was required to stand on the inside of the boat astride the scuttie hole or pit, and by reason of being so compelled to stand astride said scuttle or pit his clothing and a raincoat which he was wearing at the time was caused to come in dangerous nearness to the cogwheels aforesaid and the said'coat was by reason of the position in which he was required to stand while so engaged in oiling said shaft bearings caught by the cogwheels aforesaid and the plaintiff was thereby injured.

As to his injuries, • the plaintiff alleged and the uncontroverted' evidence shows that his left arm was caught between the cogwheels that engaged each other and ground off near where the arm joins the shoulder.

The defendant brings its appeal to this court, charging numerous errors committed by the trial court which will be noticed in the course of the opinion.

The facts are that respondent at the time of his injury was a man about twenty-one years of age and had been working for a number of months in the construction of the White river dam near Forsyth, and that defendant was engaged in building this dam and that in this work several hundred men were employed. [113]*113There was used in connection with the work two river boats designated “A” and “B,” which were identical in size and construction. These boats- were propelled by gasoline engines located near the front end of the boats. The power was transmitted from the engine to the sternwheel of the boat by shafts and cogwheels. In its mechanism there were two cogwheels about two feet in diameter, one located above the other and engaging each other. They were about nine inches from the side of the boat, and a shaft extended from the upper cogwheel through the side wall of the boat, and on the outer end of this shaft was a sprocket wheel over which a chain ran back to the stern of the boat, operating the wheel or sprocket. The side wall of the boat was about three feet high, and outside the wall was a bearing on an axle which required oiling at intervals of every few hours. On the inside of the boat on the floor and about a foot in front of the cogwheels was a hole cut in the false bottom of the boat, called a scuttle. This scuttle was about three feet long and two feet wide, and from the false bottom to the bottom of the boat was about eight inches, and on the day of the accident this space was full of water. Along the side of the scuttle next to the boat wall was a board or timber about two inches in width. A number of photographs were introduced in evidence and are brought here for our examination, two of which we have selected as sufficiently disclosing the situation. '

The first picture shows the two cogwheels and right in front of them the scuttle hole. A shaft running through the top cogwheel continues on through the side of the boat to the outside on which there is fastened a small sprocket wheel. This sprocket wheel is shown in the second picture—-the smallest wheel there shown, or the one nearest the observer. This sprocket wheel had to be oiled at a place made therefor, by reaching out over the side of the boat and

[114]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thebeau v. Thebeau
324 S.W.2d 674 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1959)
Henry v. the First Nat'l Bk. of Kansas City
115 S.W.2d 121 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1938)
Jenkins v. Springfield Traction Co.
96 S.W.2d 620 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1936)
McWhorter v. Dahl Chevrolet Co.
88 S.W.2d 240 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1935)
Mattingly v. Broderick
36 S.W.2d 415 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)
State Ex Rel. City of St. Charles v. Haid
28 S.W.2d 97 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Cregger v. City of St. Charles
11 S.W.2d 750 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1928)
Northern v. Chesapeake & Gulf Fisheries Co.
8 S.W.2d 982 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1928)
Timmermann v. St. Louis Architectural Iron Co.
1 S.W.2d 791 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Hogan v. Fleming
297 S.W. 404 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Kidd v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
274 S.W. 1079 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
Wengert v. Lyons
273 S.W. 143 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1925)
Radford v. Horton
227 S.W. 1073 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1921)
Foster v. United Zinc Companies
176 S.W. 247 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 S.W. 1081, 188 Mo. App. 105, 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-ambursen-hydraulic-construction-co-moctapp-1915.