Findlay v. Russel Wheel & Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1896
• Citation: 108 Mich. 286,66 N.W. 50
• Parties: FINDLAY v. RUSSEL WHEEL & FOUNDRY CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

66 N.W. 50

108 Mich. 286

FINDLAY v. RUSSEL WHEEL & FOUNDRY CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 7, 1896

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; William L. Carpenter, Judge.

Action by William Findlay against the Russel Wheel & Foundry Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Moore & Moore (Russel & Campbell, of counsel), for appellant.

John G Hawley, for appellee.

HOOKER J.

The plaintiff was engaged in the manufacture of cars at the defendant's car shop. The car bodies were placed upon trucks, by the use of a rope, both ends of which extended to a point near the ceiling, where they passed through a double block, after which the ends united in a ring. A drum or winch is situated near, from which a rope proceeded through a sheave just above the floor. The rope had a hook at the end which was used to hook into the ring mentioned. Winding the rope upon the drum had the effect of drawing it through the sheave, and, in turn, would draw the double rope through the double block above, thus lifting the car or weight. A chain five or six feet long was fastened by one end near the sheave. At the other end of the chain was a hook. When the weight was raised sufficiently high, the chain was passed through the ring, and the hook was hooked into or about the chain, thereby holding and taking the weight off from the sheave or winch, permitting the rope to be withdrawn. It is apparent that the rope could only be unhooked from the ring after the chain had been passed through and fastened, and the testimony shows that it was sometimes disengaged with difficulty, by jerking. On the day in question, the plaintiff was called by the foreman in charge of the room to aid in hitching and unhitching the rope, and to assist in placing a flat car upon its trucks. The foreman was in the habit of working with the men, there being about 14 in his department. After the chain was fastened, the plaintiff attempted to unhook the rope, giving the signal, by saying "All right," which, he says, meant that the foreman, King, who had charge of the winch, should slacken the rope by unwinding the rope from the drum. Plaintiff states that, instead of doing so, he set the drum in motion the wrong way, thereby winding up the rope, and raising the weight, and that he (the plaintiff) had his hand upon the rope, and it was drawn down into the sheave, resulting in the loss of two fingers. He recovered a judgment against the defendant, in an action for negligence, and the defendant has appealed. The only errors assigned are the submission of the case to the jury...