Eckhardt v. Jones' Market

Decision Date03 October 1922
CitationEckhardt v. Jones' Market, 105 Or. 204, 209 P. 470 (Or. 1922)
PartiesECKHARDT v. JONES' MARKET.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; John McCourt, Judge.

Action by William Eckhardt against the Jones' Market.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries.The complaint alleges substantially that the defendant, on December 24 1918, was operating a meat market wherein a factory or workshop was maintained in which power-driven machinery was used and manual labor exercised by way of trade for gain in making sausage for sale, and over which premises the defendant had the right of control and the right of access thereto; that, prior to the injury complained of, the defendant elected not to become bound by the provisions of chapter 112 of the Laws of 1913 and the amendments thereto and that it did not contribute to the state industrial accident fund and was not working under said act at the date of the injury.It is further alleged:

"That on said 24th day of December, 1918, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant and was known as a sausage maker, and was employed to and did work in a certain room or place where power-driven machinery was used for making sausage as aforesaid, and was employed to and did work with and around powerdriven machinery in making sausage; that about 10 a. m. on said 24th day of December, 1918, the plaintiff, as part of his duties in said workshop or factory, was loading a truck maintained by the defendant with pickled hams; that said duties were incidental to the duties of the plaintiff as sausage maker; that said hams were stored in a storeroom maintained by the defendant, and were placed in round vats about four feet high, standing against each other in rows along the sides and ends of the room and in three rows through the middle of said room; that a passageway was left around the room between the vats along the sides and ends of said room and the rows through the middle of said room, which passageway was of just sufficient width to permit the truck which the plaintiff was loading, as aforesaid, to pass through and be loaded from said vats; that prior to said 24th day of December, 1918, the defendant negligently, carelessly and without regard to the welfare and safety of its employés caused the said passageway along one end of said room to be filled with barrels piled on top of each other, so that the truck could not be taken along the passageway on that end of said room, and an employé could not pass through said passageway or get to the vats of pickled hams along that end of said room without climbing over said barrels; that the said defendant negligently, carelessly, and without regard to the welfare or safety of its employés, piled said vats of pickled hams on said end of said room in which said passageway had been blocked, as aforesaid, on top of each other; that, while said room and vats and passageway were in said condition, the plaintiff and one other employé of the defendant were required to get a truck load of hams from the middle vat on the top row on that end of said room on which said passageway had been blocked as aforesaid, and, in order to do so, the fellow employé of the defendant was required to climb over the barrels piled in said passageway and stand on top of said barrels and lower row of vats and take said hams from said middle vat and throw them to this plaintiff, a distance of about ten feet, and this plaintiff was required to stand in the small space left by the curvature of two vats nearest the passageway on the side of said room and between those vats and the truck, the said truck being of sufficient size to fill said passageway, leaving only the small three-cornered space between the said truck and said two vats in which the plaintiff could stand; that said space in which the said plaintiff was required to stand was so small that he was in a cramped and awkward position, and said vats and barrels were in his way; that the brine in which the hams were placed was so cold that the hands of the plaintiff and his fellow employé became so cold, numbed, and awkward that it was very difficult and extremely hazardous to handle said hams in said manner; that said hams were large and heavy, and that they had sharp bones projecting from them, and these bones would pierce the hands of the employés without negligence on their part when they were so cold and numbed that they would not know of it at the time; that said bones when piercing the flesh, have a strong tendency to produce blood poisoning, which fact was known to the defendant, and that one of said bones did pierce the palm and finger of the left hand of the plaintiff without any fault or negligence on his part whatsoever, and the plaintiff contracted blood poisoning in said hand as a result thereof; that the foreman in the employ of the defendant, and under whom the plaintiff was working at the time of said injury, had the habit of urging his workmen to excessive speed, and that the plaintiff and his fellow employé knew at all times that they must work with utmost speed, and were working under those conditions at said time and place when said injury was received; that the defendant was negligent in requiring its employés to work at such speed in entire disregard of their welfare and safety that it was negligent in storing said pickled hams in vats on top of each other in said manner without providing sufficient safe means for its employés to handle the same; that it was negligent in causing the passageway across the ends of said room to be blocked as aforesaid; that it was negligent in requiring the plaintiff and his fellow employé to load said hams when said passageway was blocked as aforesaid; that the defendant knew that bones from pickled hams have a strong tendency to cause blood poisoning when piercing the flesh, and that the brine in which said hams were placed was so cold that it numbed the hands of those handling the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • McBee v. Hale
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1952
    ...Plaintiff-appellant cites the following cases in support of his contention: In re Sikora, 57 Wyo. 57, 112 P.2d 557; Eckhardt v. Jones' Market, 105 Or. 204, 209 P. 470; Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co., 29 N.M. 228, 222 P. 903; Points v. Wills, 44 N.M. 31, 97 P.2d 374; Mathews v. New Mexico Ligh......
  • Concannon v. Oregon Portland Cement Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1968
    ...in the then compensation law of this state. Camenzind v. Freeland Furniture Co., 1918, 89 Or. 158, 174 P. 139; Eckhardt v. Jones' Market, 1922, 105 Or. 204, 209 P. 470; Hoffman v. Broadway Hazelwood, 1932, 139 Or. 519, 10 P.2d 349, 11 P.2d 814, 83 A.L.R. 1008. It could not be satisfactorily......
  • Jennings v. State Indus. Acc. Commission
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1951
    ...able to discover, only two cases in Oregon have discussed the matter of 'workshop' in compensation cases, and they are Eckhardt v. Jones' Market, 105 Or. 204, 209 P. 470, and Hoffman v. Broadway Hazelwood, 139 Or. 519, 10 P.2d 349, 350, 11 P.2d 814, 83 A.L.R. 1008. But see McLean v. State I......
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Estes
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1922
  • Get Started for Free