Anderson v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 10 January 1899
• Citation: 77 N.W. 891,101 Wis. 538
• Parties: ANDERSON v. HAYES. TURNQUIST v. HAYES.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

101 Wis. 538

77 N.W. 891

ANDERSON

v.HAYES.

TURNQUIST

v.HAYES.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 10, 1899.

Appeals from superior court, Douglas county; C. Smith, Judge.

Actions by James Anderson and Charles Turnquist, respectively, against Hiram Hayes. From orders overruling demurrers to each complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

These actions are actions for personal injuries, the complaints being identical. General demurrers to each complaint were overruled, and the defendant appeals. The complaint in each case charges that in 1896 the defendant erected an iron-manufacturing shop in the city of Superior, equipped with the necessary machinery, including a cupola or furnace room, an elevator, and the necessary appliances therefor, the elevator being intended to be used in connection with the furnace for the purpose of carrying ore and employés to the second floor of the building, and that it was necessary in order to operate said furnace that the elevator be so used. That about December 26, 1896, the defendant leased the premises to one Frank Hayes for one year to be used as a foundry and machine shop, and that Frank Hayes thereupon went into possession and operation of said furnace and elevator and continued so in possession thereof until after the injuries of the plaintiffs hereinafter set forth. “That defendant was grossly careless and negligent in the construction and erection of said elevator, and in equipping, adjusting, and putting the same in position for use, and he did carelessly and negligently furnish and supply therefor and equip the same with a clamp which was not adapted for said purpose, and with a steel cable which was to be used for the purpose of holding and hoisting the same, which cable the defendant did negligently, carelessly, and defectively connect therewith, by means of and through an eye or loop on top of said elevator frame, and then brought up back against the same, and there attempt to fasten the same to the cable above the said eye or loop by means of an iron clamp. That said clamp was provided with two grooves through its inside, in which said cable was laid. That the end of said cable was then brought back against said cable, above said eye or loop, and said clamp brought together and bolted fast. That the grooves therein were too large for said cable, and did not secure or hold the same, but permitted it to slip through the said grooves and become detached in the ordinary and usual course of the operation of said elevator. That by reason thereof the same was defective and dangerous, and would not sustain the weight which necessarily, ordinarily, and usually would be placed upon the said elevator, but would permit the said elevator to drop down onto the ground below. That by reason thereof the said elevator was at all times a nuisance, and imminently, necessarily, and highly dangerous to, and it did necessarily endanger, the life and limb of all persons who might be in its vicinity, as well as all persons who might use, or be employed upon, or ride thereon, and the natural and inevitable consequence to all such persons was to expose them to great and imminent danger to life and limb. That defendant did at all times know of its said dangerous condition, and of the imminent danger to which all persons above stated who were engaged thereon or thereabouts would be exposed, and in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence he could have known thereof. Upon information and belief the plaintiff alleges that said Frank Hayes had no knowledge of the defective and dangerous condition of said elevator and its appliances and fastenings, nor of the actual condition...