Armour & Co. v. Russell

• Decision Date: 21 March 1906
• Docket Number: 2,297.
• Citation: 144 F. 614
• Parties: ARMOUR & CO. v. RUSSELL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

144 F. 614

ARMOUR & CO. v. RUSSELL.

No. 2,297.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 21, 1906

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The limit of the master's duty to his servant regarding places and appliances is to exercise ordinary care, having regard to the hazards of the service, to provide the servant with reasonably safe working places, machinery, tools, and appliances, and to exercise ordinary care to maintain them in a reasonably safe condition of repair. It is not his duty to provide reasonably safe working places, machinery, tools, or appliances, or to keep them in a reasonably safe condition of repair.

The legal presumption is that error produces prejudice. It is only when the fact appears so clearly as to be beyond doubt that the error challenged did not prejudice, and could not have prejudiced, the complaining party, that the rule that error without prejudice is no ground for reversal is applicable.

The vice of a wrong rule in a charge is not extracted by the fact that the right rule is also given, because it is impossible to tell by which rule the jury was governed.

Thomas F. Bevington (Alfred R. Urion, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Thomas G. Henderson (Frank L. Ferris and Arnold L. Fribourg, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

This was an action by a servant against his master for damages for negligence in the construction and maintenance of elevators and of the shaft in which they operated. At the close of the evidence counsel for the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that all that was required of the master was that it should have exercised ordinary care to provide reasonably safe and suitable elevators and appliances for the use of its servant. The court denied this request, and charged the jury that it was the duty of the defendant to furnish the plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe tools, implements, or appliances with which to do his work, and to keep them in a reasonably safe condition of repair during the service.

But actionable negligence is nothing but a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care. It is not a breach of a guaranty of the character of place or of appliances. If a duty to provide a reasonably safe place or reasonably safe appliances were imposed upon the master, he would become in effect a guarantor of their reasonable safety, because his failure in any respect to make and keep them reasonably safe would be a breach of that duty and would cast him in damages, however great were his watchfulness and diligence. This is not the legal measure of the master's duty or liability. The limit of his duty is to exercise ordinary care, having regard to the hazards of the service, to provide the servant with reasonably safe working places, machinery, tools, and appliances, and to exercise ordinary care to maintain them in a reasonably safe condition of repair. Washington & R Co. v. McDade, 135 U.S. 554, 569, 10 Sup.Ct. 1044, 34 L.Ed. 235; Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Barrett, 166 U.S 617, 619, 620, 17 Sup.Ct. 707, 41 L.Ed. 1136; Choctaw Oklahoma & Gulf R. Co. v. Holloway, 52 C.C.A. 260, 114 F. 458, 460; American Bridge Co. v. Seeds (C.C.A.; decided at the December, 1905, term), 144 F. 605; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. C. v. Needham, 69 F. 823, 825, 16 C.C.A. 457, 459; Lesser Cotton Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co., 52 C.C.A. 95, 103, 114 F. 133, 141; Gowen v. Harley, 56 F. 973, 980, 6 C.C.A. 190, 197; Florence & C.C.R. Co. v. Whipps (C.C.A.) 138 F. 13, 17; Southern Pac. Co. v. Gloyd (C.C.A.) 138...