| Mo. Ct. App. | Feb 8, 1886
Lead Opinion
This is an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while engaged in the service of defendant as a section hand.
The evidence fully supported the declarations of law given in the case, it having been tried by the court, sitting as a jury.
■The only question is, as to the correctness of those declarations of law. They are as follows:
*466 “1. If the court, sitting as a jury, finds, from the evidence, that one Thomas Neilson was defendant’s section foreman and was superintending, for the defendant, the work of taking up and removing the rail in question, and had entire control and charge of, with power to employ and discharge, section hands, and that the plaintiff was subject to his orders and directions, then the said Thomas Neilson was not a fellow-servant with the plaintiff within the meaning of the law, and the said Thomas Neilson’s acts and conduct in connection with said work were, and are, the acts and conduct of defendant, so far as this case is concerned.”
“2. The court declares the law to be, if the court believes from the evidence that at the time plaintiff was injured he was in the employ of the defendant, as a section hand, and he was in charge of and under the direction of Thomas Neilson, a section foreman, also in the employ of the defendant; that it was the duty of said section foreman to have charge of and direct the work and the manner in which plaintiff was engaged when he was injured; that it was the duty of plaintiff to obey the orders and directions of the section foreman in the performance of the work of removing rails from defendant’s railway at the time and place he was injured; that while so engaged, and in obedience to the directions and commands of defendant’s section foreman, plaintiff picked up a rail, and was assured by the section foreman, when enquired of if it was free and clear, that it was, and to throw it out, and that it was not free and clear, and by reason thereof, rebounded and flew back upon plaintiff and cut off one of his toes, then plaintiff is entitled to recover against the defendant.”
The objections urged by defendant to the declarations of law are: first, that, under the facts therein assumed, Thomas Neilson was a fellow-servant of plaintiff’s; second, that the fact that one spike remained in the rail was as patent to plaintiff as to any one else, and that the plaintiff having failed to observe the same, could’ not complain of any injury caused by such failure.
In Marshall v. Schricker et al. (63 Mo. 308" court="Mo." date_filed="1876-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/marshall-v-schricker-8005418?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8005418">63 Mo. 308), Judge Hough, who delivered the opinion of the court, reviewed many of the Missouri cases up to that time upon this question, and quoted, in conclusion, with approval, the following language of the opinion in Malone, adm’r, v. Hathaway (64 N.Y. 5" court="NY" date_filed="1876-01-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/malone-v--hathaway-3616558?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3616558">64 N. Y. 5): “ Where a superior servant employs and discharges the subalterns, and the principal withdraws from the management of the business, or the business is of such a nature that it is necessarily committed to agents, as in the case of corporations, the principal is liable for the neglects and omissions of duty of the one charged with the selections of other servants, .in employing and selecting such servants, and in the general conduct of the business committed to his care.”
The doctrine enunciated in Marshall v. Schricker et al., supra, has never been limited in this state. It is not necessary for us, in this case, to decide whether it has been or should be extended. Under its authority we hold that under the facts, assumed in the declarations of law, the existence of which was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, Thomas Neilson was not the plaintiff’s fellow-servant, but was the defendant’s vice-principal.
II.
The defendant’s second objection is not well made. In McGowan v. R. R. Co. (61 Mo. 532), it is said: “If the conductor who quieted the plaintiff’s apprehensions of danger, and reassured him of his safety and the sufficiency of the rope, was a vice-principal, acting for and in lieu of, the master in the control of the hands, and the superintendence of the work and machinery, we think the defendant would have been liable, notwithstanding the plaintiff may have believed the rope to be unsafe. An assurance, from one representing the master, that the machinery, or apparatus being used is all right,
The judgment is affirmed.
Rehearing
ON MOTION POR RE-HEARING.
We expressly based our opinion that the plaintiff and Neilson were not fellow-servants, upon the facts stated in the declarations of law and therein submitted to the court for its finding. Those facts are, that Neilson was the defendant’s section foreman, and was-superintending, for defendant, the work of taking up- and removing the rail in question, and had entire control and charge of the section hands, with power to employ and discharge them, and that plaintiff was subject to his orders and directions, and that while so engaged, and in obedience to the directions and commands of said Neilson, plaintiff picked up a rail, and was assured by said Neilson, when enquired of if it was free and clear, that it was, and to throw it out, and that it was not free and clear, and by reason thereof, rebounded and flew back upon plaintiff and cut off one of Ms toes. Those facts, having been found by the trial court, we assumed in our opinion to be true, and under those facts we held that in this case the plaintiff and Neilson were not- fellow-servants, and that Neilson was the defendant’s vice principal. We see no reason for changing our opinion.
In Moore v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company (84 Mo. 481" court="Mo." date_filed="1884-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-wabash-st-louis--pacific-railway-co-8008192?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8008192">84 Mo. 481), it was held that a foreman of' car repairers, who had sole charge and control of hands-employed to repair cars was not the fellow-servant of a car repairer in Ms charge, and under Ms control, direction, and command. In that case', the foreman ordered and directed the plaintiff to repair the draw-head of one of the freight cars of the defendant, then standing with-other freight cars upon the side track, while the cars were detached from any engine. The foreman promised
It may be well to say that the evidence in the case at bar shows that Neilson had been assisting the plaintiff and another section man in taking up the rail in proof, but that at the time referred to in the declarations of law, Neilson did not have hold of the rail. He was three ■or four feet north of the north end of the rail. It was the north end of the rail about which the plaintiff made his inquiry, and which was not free and clear. We hold, that in assuring the plaintiff that the rail was free, and in ordering the plaintiff to throw the rail out, Neilson was the vice principal of defendant, and not the plaintiff’s fellow-servant. As the representative of the defendant, as its alter ego, he was directing and managing the work of removing the rail, and was not assisting the plaintiff as a co-laborer in so doing.
the motion for re-hearing is denied.