Fink v. Des Moines Ice Co.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1892
• Citation: 51 N.W. 155,84 Iowa 321
• Parties: FINK v. DES MOINES ICE CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

84 Iowa 321

51 N.W. 155

FINK

v.DES MOINES ICE CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 26, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; CHARLES A. BISHOP, Judge.

Action to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been received in consequence of negligence on the part of defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $1,000 and costs. The defendant appeals.Mitchell & Dudley, for appellant.

Kauffman & Guernsey, for appellee.

ROBINSON, C. J.

In February, 1889, plaintiff was employed by defendant to assist in filling with ice an ice-house on the west side of the Des Moines river in Des Moines. On the bank of the river was erected a building known in the record as a “doghouse.” From the river to the dog-house the ice was drawn up an inclined way by machinery. In the dog-house the ice was projected onto a slide, which reached from the dog-house westward to the ice-house,--a distance of about 130 feet. The slide was about 22 feet above the surface of the ground at the dog-house, and, when first completed, sloped downward until it reached the ice-house. As the latter was filled, the west end of the slide was raised from time to time, and when the accident in question occurred a part of the slide, 30 or more feet from the ice-house, was nearly level, while that part next to the ice-house inclined upwards. The slide rested on trestle-work made of upright timbers, to which were nailed stringers, cross-pieces, braces, and hand-rails. On each side of the slide was a foot-board, on which the workmen walked. The spaces between the sets of upright timbers or bents was about 16 feet, excepting between the two nearest the ice-house, which were shorter. The slide was made in sections 16 feet long, by nailing three parallel hardwood strips, 2 by 2 inches in size, to cross-pieces, and by fastening on each side a strip, 2 by 4 inches in size, placed on edge. The third section from the ice-house was 16 feet above the ground. Some of the braces with which other bents were supplied were omitted from the two which supported that section, in order to permit the driving of teams between them. The cakes of ice were about 22 inches square, and from 12 to 16 inches in thickness, and each one weighed from 150 to 200 pounds. From four to eight of those cakes would be projected onto the slide at one time, with a momentum which carried them some distance along the slide. It was the duty of plaintiff and other employes to keep the cakes moving in the slide, and, when necessary, to push them into the ice-house. While plaintiff was pushing with an ice-pike a number of ice-cakes along the third section from the ice-house, it gave way, and he was precipitated, with the ice, to the ground, receiving the injuries of which he complains.

1. The plaintiff claims that the slide was not properly constructed, and that the defects were due to negligence on the part of defendant. There is much conflict in the evidence, but we are of the opinion the the jury were fully justified in finding the claim to be well founded. The trestle-work was a temporary structure, designed to be used but a short time each season, and to be taken down after being used. The bents and some other parts were kept from year to year, and repeatedly used, but some parts were renewed each year. The trestle-work in question was constructed according to the plans and under the supervision of the officers or managers of defendant. The evidence tended to establish the following additional facts: The plaintiff was injured while working in the line of duty, without negligence on his part. He did not know the actual condition of the trestle-work, and had not had an opportunity to know it. The trestle-work was poorly constructed at the place of the accident. It vibrated so much when the ice was passing over it as to loosen the nails with which the cross-pieces and stringers were fastened to the timbers. The cross-pieces were not secured by a sufficient number of nails, and were easily loosened, and finally one or more of them gave way under a moderate load of ice, thus causing the accident. The timbers used were of sufficient strength to have sustained safely weights three or four times as heavy as any to which they were subjected; and the structure could have been made safe by framing and bolting the timbers, stringers, and cross-pieces together, or even by using a few more nails in nailing them together, and by proper bracing. A change in the plan of constructing the slide could also have been made with advantage. It was the duty of defendant to provide and maintain for the use...