Butcher v. Queen City Iron & Metal Co.

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $15,000 after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal.

Facts:

On October 25, 1947, plaintiff went to defendant partnership’s place of business, which was a steel and metal yard, for the purpose of buying a piece of steel and also some scrap angle iron. Upon entering the yard plaintiff saw defendant Wood, an employee of the partnership, and also Mr. Carpió, foreman of the yard. The foreman upon learning plaintiff’s mission requested plaintiff to follow him to the back of the yard. This he did and was shown a piece of steel longer than he desired. The foreman told plaintiff he could cut the metal the length desired, and started to cut it in plaintiff’s presence. Before the metal was completely cut plaintiff walked along the stock shed to a point where the foreman had told him he could find some scrap angle iron. Plaintiff picked up some shórt pieces of angle iron and went toward the office and the scales. Plaintiff stopped near a cutting table where defendant Wood was using a torch. On the table was a steel plate below which was a piece of round steel approximately 3% feet in length and about 2% to 2% inches in diameter, weighing approximately 100 pounds. Plaintiff did not know the round steel was on the table, it being completely covered by the plate steel and not visible to plaintiff. Defendant Wood, however, knew thé piece of steel was beneath the plate. While plaintiff was standing near the table defendant Wood looking in the general direction toward plaintiff said “That plate is in my way.” After the statement, plaintiff went up to the table, picked up the steel plate, and

[27]

the piece of round steel beneath the plate rolled off the table striking plaintiff’s right foot and injuring it.

As a result of the injury it was necessary to amputate the right great toe. The amputation of the toe caused plaintiff to have a permanent limp and a doctor testified that further surgery might be necessary in the future.

Questions:

First:

Did the evidence show that defendant partnership had violated a duty which it owed plaintiff