Thomas v. Wis. Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 July 1909
• Citation: 122 N.W. 456,108 Minn. 485
• Parties: THOMAS v. WISCONSIN CENT. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

108 Minn. 485

122 N.W. 456

THOMAS

v.WISCONSIN CENT. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 23, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Homer B. Dibell, Judge.

Action by Harry Thomas against the Wisconsin Central Railway Company. Plaintiff had a verdict, and the trial court granted a new trial, but denied that part of the motion demanding a final judgment for defendant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a master places upon his premises in the immediate vicinity where his servants are engaged at work an independent contractor for a specific purpose, still retaining the general control of the premises and continuing the conduct of his own business, his legal obligation to provide his servants with a safe place in which to perform their duties requires of him the exercise of reasonable care to protect them from the negligence of the independent contractor.

The obligation of the master to provide his servants a safe place extends to the portion of his premises on which they are required to work and such other places thereon as they are expressly or impliedly invited and permitted to use.

The relation of master and servant, in so far as involves the obligation of the master to protect his servant while rightfully upon his premises, is not suspended during the noon hour, when the master expects, and expressly or by fair implication invites, the servant to remain upon the premises in the immediate vicinity of the work. Crasweller & Crasweller, for appellant.

Samuel A. Anderson and Warner E. Whipple, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action to recover for personal injuries, in which plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The trial court granted a new trial, but denied that part of the motion demanding a final judgment for defendant. The only question presented on this appeal is, therefore, whether in any view of the evidence plaintiff has a cause of action against defendant.

The facts are as follows: Defendant is a railroad corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and as such operates a line of railroad from Chicago, through Wisconsin, to Duluth and other points in this state. At the time of the accident here complained of it was engaged in constructing certain shops and yards at South Superior, in the state of Wisconsin. The buildings were located near the railway tracks, and were being constructed by a firm of independent contractors, who employed in and about the work some 50 or more men. Defendant in its own behalf was engaged in the same locality in grading and excavating for its roadbed, and also employed about 50 men. One Roberts was engaged as an independent contractor in sinking a well within one of the buildings, and employed in his work an old engine and boiler, which, as will presently be mentioned, exploded, killing several of defendant's employés. Plaintiff, with other of defendant's servants, was engaged in excavating a roadway immediately adjacent to the building in which the well was located, on the east side thereof, and by means of wheelbarrows conveyed the excavated material to a point northwest from the building a distance of about 75 feet. The boiler used by Roberts in sinking the well was located on the west side of this building and was under his exclusive control; at least, the evidence does not show that defendant exercised any supervision in respect to its operation. However, defendant had not surrendered control of its premises to Roberts, or the other contractors engaged in the construction of the buildings, but remained in possession thereof, and with its employés was engaged in the track work heretofore mentioned. Roberts was upon the premises solely for the purposes of the work intrusted to him. The railroad employés were under the control of a general foreman in charge of the track work, and were subject to his orders and directions. The men were given but a half hour for a midday intermission, and were expected to, and did, take their luncheon with them and eat it upon the premises in the immediate vicinity of their work. The ground upon which the work was being carried forward was swampy or marshy, and at the noon hour the employés found a convenient dry knoll or spot of ground upon which to kindle a small fire for the purpose of heating their coffee, and upon which to rest while partaking of their lunch. Though the foreman testified that a railroad car had been provided for this purpose, he also testified that it was not used by all the men, who, with his knowledge, were in the habit of going upon the premises wherever a dry place could be found, instead of going to the car. Plaintiff testified that he knew nothing about the car, and was not informed that it had been furnished for the convenience of the men. Roberts' boiler, used in the well-digging operations, was located upon the only dry spot of ground to the west of the building, and on the day of the injury to plaintiff he and other employés of defendant repaired to that place for lunch. Before they had finished, the boiler exploded, killing several of the men, and severely injuring plaintiff.

Plaintiff's theory of the action at the trial was that defendant was under legal obligations to provide its employés, including plaintiff, with a reasonably safe place in which to do their work, and to protect them from dangers unknown to them while rightly upon its premises, and that it failed in the performance of this duty, and is liable for all injuries sustained in consequence of its failure. The trial court sent the case to the jury upon this theory, and they found generally in plaintiff's favor. It is contended by defendant (1) that the evidence conclusively shows that Roberts, the well digger, was an independent contractor, over whom it had no control, either respecting the manner of doing his work or the instrumentalities used; and (2) that plaintiff, in going upon the spot of ground where the boiler was located, did so for his own convenience, without any express or implied invitation from defendant, and was not then a servant of defendant, but a mere licensee, and that defendant owed him no active vigilance for his protection.

1. We are unable to sustain either of these contentions. Defendant was under legal obligation to provide plaintiff, its servant, a reasonably safe place in which to do his work, or, as more accurately expressed, to exercise reasonable care to so provide. This necessarily included protection from unknown danger while rightfully upon defendant's premises, and such as reasonable prudence on defendant's part would have guarded against. It could not avoid the...