Dunlavey v. Racine Malleable & Wrought Iron Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1901 |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 1025,110 Wis. 391 |
| Parties | DUNLAVEY v. RACINE MALLEABLE & WROUGHT IRON CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Racine county; Frank M. Fish, Judge.
Action by James Dunlavey against the Racine Malleable & Wrought Iron Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Ingalls & Ingalls and Wm. Smieding, for appellant.
Kearney & Thompson and J. V. Quarles, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff July 13, 1898, when he lacked two days of being 14 years of age, while in the employ of the defendant in its factory in Racine, and in the act of escaping from the building, which was at the time being destroyed by fire alleged in the complaint to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in permitting to be operated on the ground floor of such factory certain trip hammers, anvils, and forges in close proximity to a large, open, unprotected, and exposed vat or tank negligently situated on said ground floor, containing at all of the times herein mentioned a quantity of highly volatile and inflammable material, and by reason of such close proximity, and on said date, while said trip hammers, forges, and anvils were in operation by defendant, burning bits of heated iron, sparks of fire, and redhot scales of iron escaped, flew, and were driven from said trip hammers, anvils, and forges into, on, and about said tank so containing such inflammable substances, and thereby caused the same to ignite, and said entire factory building immediately took fire therefrom, and quickly filled with thick, black smoke and poisonous gases, which resulted in the entire destruction of said building; that at the time of the fire the plaintiff was engaged on the third floor of the building, and by reason of the fact that the building was suddenly filled with fire, smoke, and gases, he was deprived of all means of escape from the burning building, except through a window in the third story, situated near the place of his employment; that, as the only means of escape from the building, he leaped or dropped from the window to the sidewalk or ground below, a distance of nearly 40 feet, and struck with great force thereon, and, as a result from the fall, fractured both lower limbs near the ankles, and sustained an impacted fracture of both ankle joints, and also sustained serious permanent injuries to the back and spine. The complaint further alleges, in effect, that the factory building was three stories in height, and for at least four years prior to its destruction was occupied in practically the same manner, defendant employing therein during all of that time more than 25 persons; that at no time during such occupancy was the factory building provided with any fire escapes, as prescribed in chapter 355, Laws 1895. Issue being joined and trial had, the court at the close thereof directed a verdict in favor of the defendant; and from the judgment entered thereon accordingly, and also from the order denying a new trial, the plaintiff brings these appeals.
As stated, in substance, in the brief of attorneys for the plaintiff, this large manufacturing plant of the defendant had stood as then constructed about five years. That it fronted on West street on the south, and extended to Milwaukee avenue on the west, and Geneva street on the east. That it was three stories high for the whole distance on Geneva street; being 60 feet, with windows for each story. That the front on West street was three stories high from Geneva street west for a distance of 96 feet, with an entrance near the middle, and then it was two stories high for a distance of 44 feet to Milwaukee avenue, with windows for each story. That there were five windows on the west side of the third-story part, looking out onto the flat roof of the second-story part; the middle one extending to the floor of the third story. That along on the north side of the second-story part was a one-story wooden lean-to, and it extended east about 75 feet from the west line of the building. That it was over 14 feet from the ground floor in the third-story part to the floor of the second story, and 12 feet from the floor of the second story to the floor of the third story. That the one and two story parts, together, were larger in area than the third-story part. That the roof of the second-story part was flat, and descended towards the north. That the distance from the roof of the second story to the roof of the one-story part was 6 or 7 feet, and the distance from the roof of the one-story part to the ground was about seven feet. That between the roof of the one-story part and the roof of the second-story part there was a wooden ladder reaching from one to the other, spiked to the cornice. That the roof of the one-story part along a portion of the distance was just below the window sills of the second story. That there were windows in all the several stories. That there were large doors on each floor in the east end of the third-story part, opening on Geneva street. That there were large doors, used for a driveway, on the ground floor of the third-story part, about the center, leading in from West street, on the south, and which was a main entrance. That at the north side of the third-story part, and about the middle, there was an elevator shaft. That there was an inside wooden stairway, from 3 to 4 feet wide, at each end of the third-story part, leading from floor to floor, and thence to the ground floor of the blacksmith shop below. That the top floor of the third-story part was partitioned off into...
To continue reading
Request your trial