Fink v. Des Moines Ice Company
| Decision Date | 26 January 1892 |
| Citation | 51 N.W. 155,84 Iowa 321 |
| Parties | W. R. FINK, Appellee, v. DES MOINES ICE COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. 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 the defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand dollars and costs. The defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Mitchell & Dudley, for appellant.
Kauffman & Guernsey, for appellee.
In February, 1889, the plaintiff was employed by the 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 "dog-house." 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 one hundred and thirty feet. The slide was about twenty-two 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, thirty 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 sixteen feet, excepting between the two nearest the ice-house, which were shorter. The slide was made in sections sixteen feet long by nailing three parallel hardwood strips, two by two inches in size, to cross-pieces, and by fastening on each side a strip, two by four inches in size, placed on edge. The third section from the ice-house was sixteen 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 twenty-two inches square, and from twelve to sixteen inches in thickness, and each one weighed from one hundred fifty to two hundred 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 the plaintiff and other employes to keep the cakes moving in the slide, and, when necessary, to push them into the ice-house. While the 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.
I. The plaintiff claims that the slide was not properly constructed, and that the defects were due to negligence on the part of the defendant. There is much conflict in the evidence, but we are of the opinion that the jury were fully justified in finding the claim to be well founded. The trestlework 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 trestlework in question was constructed according to the plans and under the supervision of the officers or managers of the 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 trestlework, and had not had an opportunity to know it. The trestlework 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 the defendant to provide and maintain for the use of its employes safe appliances, and to use reasonable diligence to that end. Cooper v. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 44 Iowa 134. The evidence submitted authorized the jury to find that the duty specified had not been discharged.
II...
To continue reading
Request your trial