Finnerty v. Burnham

• Decision Date: 20 April 1903
• Docket Number: 212
• Citation: 54 A. 996,205 Pa. 305
• Parties: Finnerty v. Burnham, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

54 A. 996

205 Pa. 305

Finnerty v. Burnham, Appellant

No. 212

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 20, 1903

Argued January 16, 1903

Appeal, No. 212, Jan. T., 1902, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 1720, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary Finnerty v. George Burnham, William P. Henszey, John H. Converse, William L Austin, Samuel M. Vauclain, Alba B. Johnson and George Burnham, Jr., trading as Burnham, Williams & Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff's husband. Before RALSTON, J.

The circumstances of the accident are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $10,000. Defendants appealed.

Error assigned was in submitting the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Frank P. Prichard, with him John G. Johnson, for appellant. -- The evidence was insufficient to show negligence on the part of the defendants: Kinney v. Corbin, 132 Pa. 341; Ehni v. National Tube Works Co., 203 Pa. 186; Bemisch v. Roberts, 143 Pa. 1; Prescott v. Ball Engine Co., 176 Pa. 459; Dyer v. Pittsburg Bridge Co., 198 Pa. 182; Cregan v. Marston, 126 N.Y 568 (27 N.E. Repr. 952); Wachsmuth v. Shaw Electric Crane Co., 118 Mich. 275 (76 N.W. 497); Titus v. Bradford, etc., R.R. Co., 136 Pa. 618; Leonard v. Herrmann, 195 Pa. 222; Kilbride v. Carbon Dioxide, etc., Co., 201 Pa. 552; Dooner v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Company, 171 Pa. 581, 602; Keenan v. Waters, 181 Pa. 247; Service v. Shoneman, 196 Pa. 63, 66.

John M. Vanderslice, with him Clarence Vanderslice, for appellee. -- The case was for the jury: Ross v. Walker, 139 Pa. 42; Bennett v. Standard Plate Glass Co., 158 Pa. 120; Honifius v. Chambersburg Engineering Co., 196 Pa. 47; Dyer v. Pittsburg Bridge Co., 198 Pa. 182; Bannon v. Lutz, 158 Pa. 166; Reese v. Clark, 198 Pa. 312.

Before MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MESTREZAT:

The plaintiff is the widow of John Finnerty who was killed September 24, 1901, while in the service of the defendants at their locomotive works in the city of Philadelphia. He was a laborer, and on the day of the accident he and three other employees were engaged in hoisting a heavy article known as a "taper waist," for the purpose of placing it on a wagon. The work was done with a crane and a chain which had a ring in the middle and a hook at each end, and which was suspended from a hook on the arm of the crane. The hooks on the chain were fastened to the object to be raised. When the waist had been lifted to the required height and was almost on the wagon, the chain broke and the waist fell on Finnerty and killed him. The plaintiff alleges as the basis of this action that the defendants negligently furnished a chain of insufficient strength to safely lift the heavy object which the deceased and his fellow workmen were required to place on the wagon. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury and instructed them that in order to hold the defendants responsible, the plaintiff must show that the chain "was defective when it was supplied; and further, that the defect was apparent when it was supplied." The question thus submitted to the jury was determined in favor of the plaintiff and the defendants have appealed. Their contention here is that they are relieved from liability for the death of Finnerty because it appears from the evidence that they "had purchased the chain of one of the most reputable manufacturers, had put it in stock in their shop, had furnished other tools of a similar kind so that the employee could select the one he desired, and had given general instructions to report and have repaired any defects."

The duty of the master to furnish, maintain and inspect appliances and instrumentalities used by his employees is thus stated in 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), 38, citing numerous authorities, including some of our own decisions, to sustain the text: "It is the duty of the master to use reasonable care to furnish his employees with a reasonably safe place of work and with reasonably safe machinery and appliances. The master's duty in this regard does not end here, but is a continuing one. The law imposes on him the further obligation of using reasonable care to keep such place of work and such instrumentalities in a reasonably safe condition, and this, of course, is to be accomplished by a proper and timely inspection for defects, and the repair thereof." And on page 93 of the same work it is said: "Where the defect through which the injury occurs is in the original construction of the appliance or instrumentality, notice thereof to the master is unnecessary. In case of structural defects, knowledge thereof by the master will be inferred. This doctrine is no more than the application of the general rule that it is the master's duty to exercise ordinary care in providing tools, machinery and appliances that are reasonably safe."

By the verdict of the jury it has been settled that the chain, the breaking of which caused the death of Finnerty, was defective in its original construction and that the defect was apparent when it was purchased by the defendants. It is necessarily conceded by the defendants that this finding as to fixed machinery would impose on them responsibility for the...