Brodeur v. Valley Falls Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1889
• Citation: 17 A. 54,16 R.I. 448
• Parties: BRODEUR v. VALLEY FALLS CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

17 A. 54

16 R.I. 448

BRODEUR

v. VALLEY FALLS CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 9, 1889.

Trespass on the case. On demurrer.

This action was brought by Malvina Brodeur against the Valley Palls Company to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's husband, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The deceased was killed by a barrel which was thrown out of a door by one of the defendant's employes. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods in the town of Lincoln, state of Rhode Island, where it has its manufactory and a large number of employes. It has, under the officers of the corporation, a general superintendent, who has immediate control and direction of all the employes. It has also overseers of the different rooms or departments, such as the slashing-room, weave-room, spinning-room, machine-shop, blacksmith-shop, boiler-room, etc.; all under the direction and control of the general superintendent, who takes his direction from the officers of the corporation. The deceased was employed as second hand, that is, second foreman under the regular foreman of the machine-shop department, and took his orders from his immediate foreman or the general superintendent. His duties were, in common with others employed in the machine-shop department, to assist in keeping defendant's machinery in the several rooms or departments in proper repair or condition, and, in case of any breakage of machinery, to oversee and assist in its repair, under the direction of his immediate foreman or the general superintendent. In the performance of these duties he was brought at different times into all the different rooms or departments of defendant's mills. On the 2d day of April, 1884, the deceased was crossing an open court or yard from the machine-shop to the cast-iron room, so called, he being then and there engaged about his work in the machine-shop, at defendant's mill, and while passing across said yard was struck upon his head by an empty barrel which was thrown from the fourth story of the building in which the machine-shop is situated by the overseer of the slashing and dressing-room, and thereby fatally injured. Said deceased was not subject to the orders of the overseer of said slashing-room; but it was his duty, in case said overseer should report to him that any of the machinery in his department was out of repair or broken, to oversee the repair of the same, subject to the orders of his immediate foreman and general superintendent, aforesaid. On the 2d day of April, 1884, the deceased was not employed or at work in said slashing-room or department, but was employed and at work in the machine-shop, which is situated on the ground floor, and —— feet under the slashing-room aforesaid. The said overseer of said slashing-room was not, on said day, at work in the machine-shop, or with said Eli Brodeur. The barrel was thrown without proper precautions.

Patrick J. McCarthy, for plaintiff. James M. Ripley, for defendant.

STINESS, J. The question raised by this demurrer is whether the deceased and the foreman of the slashing-room were fellow-servants, within the meaning of the rule which exempts the master from liability to his servant for an injury received through the negligence of a fellow-servant in the course of their common service. The plaintiff contends that they were not, because they were not employed in the same department. The cases cited by the plaintiff, excepting those in Illinois, are plainly distinguishable from the case at bar. Thus in Railroad Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184, it was held that an engineer was not a fellow-servant with a conductor in charge, and to whom the company had given the right to command the movements of the train and to control the persons employed on it, upon the ground that the conductor should be treated, being so in fact, as the personal representative of the corporation, for whose negligence it was responsible to subordinate servants. In Moon's Adm'r v. Railroad Co., 78 Va. 745, the company was building a railroad, and the construction, at the place of injury, was in charge of a section master, who was held not to be a fellow-servant with a train hand, the company having delegated to an agent a duty incumbent upon it. It was also held that a conductor, having control and direction, was not a fellow-servant with the train hand, but his superior. In Ford v. Railroad Co., 110 Mass. 240, the company was held liable for not providing a proper engine, and in Davis v. Railroad Co., 55 Vt. 84, for a defective road-bed. These cases stand upon very different considerations from the one before us. The duty of the master to furnish suitable machinery and appliances, and to keep the same in repair, is unquestioned. It is also well settled that, when a master delegates to a servant duties which belong to himself, the servant will occupy the place of the master, not that of fellow-servant with other employes, and the master will remain as responsible for the negligence of this servant as if he were personally guilty of it himself. Mulvey v. Locomotive Works, 14 R. I. 204. In the...