Clifford v. Denver, S.P. & P.R. Co.

Decision Date12 November 1886
Citation12 P. 219,9 Colo. 333
PartiesCLIFFORD v. DENVER, S. P. & P. R. CO.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to district court, Arapahoe county.

Plaintiff was hired as a day-laborer on the construction of defendant's road. His contract provided that defendant should furnish him with 'good and suitable board and lodging.' The amended complaint contains the following among other averments:

'That some time after plaintiff commenced said work the camp of defendant, which was constructed by said defendant for the purpose of boarding and lodging plaintiff, and the force of hands employed by defendant company in building said wagon road, was moved further westward by said defendant, and further into the mountains on the line of said road, and to a great altitude, where the weather was cold and damp, and where plaintiff, and the whole force of hands and laborers with him, were greatly exposed, and their health greatly endangered from said exposure; and plaintiff charges and alleges that the defendant company, through its officers agents, and managers aforesaid, wholly neglected and refused to furnish proper shelter or houses, cabins, or tents, or the necessary blankets or bedding, to protect plaintiff, and others with him, from the cold, damp, and inclement weather of said mountains and said altitude, and especially failed and neglected to provide comfortable beds and bedding to protect plaintiff and his co-employes of nights from cold, damp weather, and from the snows and cold rains then prevailing in said mountains and at said camp.

'That plaintiff and his co-employes, immediately and without delay protested against such treatment to the said agents and officers and managers of defendant company, and notified them that plaintiff and his co-employes would at once quit work and abandon said employment unless they were immediately, or as soon as possible, furnished with comfortable lodging and protection from such weather, and proper beds and bedding to keep them warm and comfortable at night; and that said officers, agents, and managers of the said defendant then and there agreed with plaintiff and his co-employes that if they would not leave and abandon said work, but remain at the same, that defendant, through its said officers, managers and agents, would provide suitable and comfortable lodging and bedding and blankets for them, and that said officers managers, and agents so promised and assured plaintiff and his co-employes, from day to day, for several days; and that plaintiff, relying on such promises and assurances, and believing that the same would be complied with by defendant, did remain in the employment of defendant, as aforesaid, and that during such time, and while plaintiff was relying on such promises and assurances of said defendant, and for two or three consecutive nights, plaintiff was compelled to sleep on the cold, wet, and frozen ground, without anything under him except damp branches of pine or spruce trees, and without sufficient blankets or bedclothes to cover him and protect him from the cold, whereby plaintiff was taken dangerously sick from such exposure, and became wholly paralyzed in his whole body, and in all of his limbs, and became wholly unconscious, and so remained for several months, whereby his whole health was permanently ruined and destroyed for life, and his constitution shattered and so broken down that he has never recovered from the same, and never will.

'That plaintiff received all of said injuries, and has endured all of said sufferings, through the carelessness, neglect, and want of proper care and diligence on the part of said defendant, through its duly-appointed and authorized officers, agents, and managers, as aforesaid, in not exercising due and proper precaution, and in violating their said promises and assurances aforesaid, in regard to furnishing the said plaintiff and his co-employes with proper lodging and beds and bedding to protect him and them from the exposure aforesaid; and plaintiff states that he could not by any degree of care and diligence on his part, have prevented said exposure and subsequent sickness and suffering,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Lemos v. Madden
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1921
    ... ... R. A. 257; Hyatt ... v. R. R. Co. 19 Mo.App. 287; Clifford v. R. R ... Co., 12 P. 219.) Plaintiff would have incurred a penalty ... ...
  • Hines v. Sweeney
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1921
    ... ... 1021] ... of negligence are almost invariably surprises. (Clifford ... v. Railroad, 9 Colo. 333, 12 P. 219; Colorado Mfg. & ... Inv. Co. v ... ...
  • Rosted v. Great Northern Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 27 Abril 1899
    ...the injury. Larson v. St. Paul & D.R. Co., 43 Minn. 488; Denver v. Pilgrim, 9 Colo.App. 86; Bajus v. Syracuse, 103 N.Y. 312; Clifford v. Denver, 9 Colo. 333; Chrystal Troy, 124 N.Y. 519; Pullman v. Barker, supra; Louisville v. Yniestra, 21 Fla. 700; Moore v. Edison, 43 La. An. 792; Kitterin......
  • Lawrence v. Heidbreder Ice Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 10 Abril 1906
    ...authority, that the supposed effect should have resulted of necessity from the act—in other words, have been inevitable. Clifford v. Railroad, 9 Colo. 333, 12 Pac. 219; Ballou v. Farnum, 11 Allen (Mass.) 73; Dickson v. Hollister, 123 Pa. 421, 16 Atl. 484, 10 Am. St. Rep. 533. Events of caus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT