Behm v. Armour

• Decision Date: 31 May 1883
• Citation: 15 N.W. 806,58 Wis. 1
• Parties: BEHM v. ARMOUR AND OTHERS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

58 Wis. 1

15 N.W. 806

BEHM

v.ARMOUR AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed May 31, 1883.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. The complaint avers “that on the twelfth day of April, 1882, he was in the service of the defendants, as a laborer, on and about the steam-barge Ballantyne, which then was owned by the defendants, and lying near a dock in the city of Milwaukee and state of Wisconsin; that as such laborer he was working under the direction and command of a superior officer and agent of the defendants, to-wit, the mate of such steam-barge; that on the day aforesaid he was ordered by such superior officer and agent of the defendant to stand on an elevated platform adjoining the said steam-barge and shovel coal; that the defendants, by their superior officer and agent, had caused said platform to be constructed so negligently, carelessly, and unskillfully that without any fault, and without any negligence of the plaintiff, and while he was shoveling coal in obedience to said orders, it broke and fell in pieces, whereby the plaintiff was thrown with great force and violence onto the dock below, and severely hurt about the left ankle, and otherwise bodily injured, so as to become a cripple, to his damage $4,000.” This appeal is from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.J. A. Eggers, for respondent, George Behm.

Markham & Noyes, for appellants, P. D. Armour and others.

LYON, J.

The rule is settled in this state that if a servant, knowing the hazards of his employment as the business is conducted, is injured while engaged therein, he cannot maintain an action against his employer for the injury merely because the business might have been carried on in a safer mode. But if there are increased perils in the business by reason of the use of defective appliances or otherwise, known to the master, or for which he is responsible, and unknown to the servant, if the latter is injured thereby and is free from negligence, the master is liable. Strahlendorf v. Rosenthal, 30 Wis. 674;Naylor v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 53 Wis. 661; [S. C. 11 N. W. REP. 24.]

The complaint in this case sufficiently alleges that the plaintiff was in the service of defendants, engaged in shoveling coal for them; and that he was injured by reason of the breaking and falling of a platform upon which he stood when...