Coomer v. Supple Inv. Co.

• Citation: 128 Or. 224,274 P. 302
• Parties: COOMER v. SUPPLE INV. CO.
• Decision Date: 05 February 1929
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

274 P. 302

128 Or. 224

COOMER v. SUPPLE INV. CO.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 5, 1929

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George Rossman, Judge.

Action by Seldon Coomer against the Supple Investment Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action for damages for personal injury received by plaintiff on premises and while using appliances belonging to defendant. Plaintiff was in the employ of Pacific Building Materials Company as a laborer. Defendant is a corporation engaged in operating a dock and warehouse within the port of Portland on the Willamette river. On the 11th day of February, 1926, plaintiff was injured while moving cement in the course of his employment on a runway and hoist operated by defendant. The complaint charges defendant with having violated section 6785, Or. L., in failing to construct its runway and hoist with the care which it should have exercised. The charging part of the complaint is as follows:

"That the defendant failed to exercise every care and precaution practicable to use for the safety of life and limb in that it was practicable without impairing the efficiency of the work for defendant to have kept the spikes or nails in the boards on said runway from protruding above the said boards and so that they would not become caught in the aforesaid chain that the defendant should not have nailed or spiked the said boards in place where the said nails could come loose and project above the boards, and come in contact and catch on said chain; that it would have been practicable without impairing the efficiency of the work to have used bolts with nuts in the building of said runway, and to have screwed up said nuts tightly and to have placed stripping over the same which would have prevented the bolts from protruding, and as a direct and proximate result of the violation of said Employers' Liability Law of Oregon, plaintiff received the injuries hereinbefore set forth."

Plaintiff demands damages in the sum of $17,500. Plaintiff recovered judgment based on the verdict in the sum of $2,027. Defendant appeals, alleging error based on the orders of the court on admissibility of testimony, the refusal of the court to give an instruction requested by defendant, the giving of certain instructions, and denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict.

F. S Senn, of Portland (L. E. Crouch, of Portland, on the brief) for appellant.

Wm. P Lord, of Portland (Lord & Moulton, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

COSHOW C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

Defendant does not insist in its brief on the alleged errors of the court in ruling on the testimony. Defendant insists earnestly, however, on its assigned error based on the court's denying its motion for a directed verdict. Its argument in that behalf is that there is no evidence tending to show that defendant had any knowledge of the defective condition of the runway or hoist. It cites a number of authorities supporting its contention, but none of those authorities is from the courts of this state. The rule of law is well established in this state that an employer must exercise every care and precaution practical to use for the safety of life and limb of its employees and the public. Or. L. § 6785. Said section is a part of the law known as the Employers' Liability Act (Or. L. §§ 6785-6791). The law requires an employer to exercise every reasonable care and precaution requisite to protect its employees and others having a duty or a legal right to be on the premises of the employer from injury. Rorvik v. North P. Lumber Co., 99 Or. 58, 190 P. 331, 195 P. 163; Turnidge v. Thompson, 89 Or. 637, 646, 175 P. 281; Clayton v. Enterprise Electric Co., 82 Or. 149, 161 P. 411; Morgan v. Bross, 64 Or. 63, 129 P. 118; Cauldwell v. Bingham & Shelley Co., 84 Or. 257, 155 P. 190, 163 P. 827; Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar (C. C. A.) 10 F. (2d) 335. Rulings of the courts of other jurisdictions and principles stated by text-writers based on other statutes than our own are not pertinent.

The...