Fromme v. Lang & Co.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1929 |
| Citation | 131 Or. 501,281 P. 120 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
| Parties | FROMME v. LANG & CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Robert Tucker, Judge.
Action under the Employers' Liability Act () by Will Fromme, administrator of the estate of Rolf Braune, deceased, against Lang & Co. Judgment for defendant, and from an order granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. K Oppenheimer, of Portland (Wilbur, Beckett, Howell & Oppenheimer, Dey, Hampson & Nelson, and George Buland, all of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
Arthur I. Moulton and Gunther F. Krause, both of Portland (Lord & Moulton, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
Plaintiff's intestate, an employee of defendant, while entering upon a freight elevator used by defendant in the operation of its plant and during the course of his employment sustained injuries causing his death. Plaintiff, as the personal representative of decedent, brought this action under the Employers' Liability Act () for the benefit of decedent's mother, who resides in Germany, to recover damages for his death. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict and judgment and for a new trial. The motion was allowed and defendant has appealed from the order sustaining the motion.
Among other things, the Employers' Liability Act requires employers to use every device, care, and precaution which it is practicable to use for the protection and safety of their employees, which requirement is limited only by the necessity for preserving the efficiency of the machine or other apparatus and without regard to the additional cost of such safety appliance or device. The complaint charged, as one of the acts of negligence causing the death of decedent, defendant's failure to equip the elevator with a device that would stop the elevator and automatically lock it upon its reaching the different floors of the building where it was intended to be used and keep it and the gate protecting its exit upon that floor stationary while being used. It alleged that such a device was practicable and could have been used for that purpose without affecting or limiting the efficiency of the elevator. It also alleged that the elevator was operated by electric power and was moved from floor to floor by a cable operated by hand, and that the elevator shaft had gates upon the different floors which automatically raised and lowered as the elevator was raised or lowered above or below such floors, and that, by reason of defendant's failure to equip said elevator with said device, decedent sustained the injuries which caused his death. These allegations were denied by the answer, and, upon the trial, plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that at the time of decedent's death the elevator was being raised by some person on the floor above, and that when it reached the floor where decedent was the gates raised without stopping the elevator and decedent attempted to get onto the elevator and was caught by the gate as it descended, throwing him partly upon and partly on the side of the elevator, crushing him and causing him to fall into the elevator shaft, from which injuries he died within a short time thereafter. Plaintiff also offered evidence tending to show that there is a device which could have been used that would have automatically locked the elevator when it reached the floor where decedent was and would have permitted him to get onto the elevator while stationary, which, if used, would have prevented the gates from descending until the elevator had been released and would have prevented the injuries complained of.
To overcome the effect of this evidence, defendant called as a witness the service manager of the Otis Elevator Company, who testified that he was familiar with defendant's elevator and with the other elevators generally in use in the city of Portland, and, over the objection and exception of plaintiff, the following testimony was given by him:
The admission of this testimony was assigned by plaintiff in his motion as one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skeeters v. Skeeters
...Paris, 199 Or. 365, 261 P.2d 856; Hoffman v. Broadway Hazelwood, 139 Or. 519, 10 P.2d 349, 11 P.2d 814, 83 A.L.R. 1008; Fromme v. Lang & Co., 131 Or. 501, 281 P. 120. Plaintiff alleges in paragraph V of his second amended complaint that the defendants were negligent '(4) In failing to use e......
-
Dyer v. R.E. Christiansen Trucking, Inc.
...Palmer et al., 204 Or. 257, 272, 280 P.2d 982 (1955); Frame v. Arrow Towing Service, 155 Or. 522, 64 P.2d 1312 (1937); Fromme v. Lang & Co., 131 Or. 501, 281 P. 120 (1929); Myrtle Point Trans. Co. v. Port of Coquille River, 86 Or. 311, 168 P. 625 (1917). However, in James v. Carnation Co., ......
-
Yeatts v. Polygon Nw. Co.
...or device, and without regard to the additional cost of suitable material or safety appliance(s) and devices.’ ”Fromme v. Lang & Co. , 131 Or. 501, 505, 281 P. 120 (1929). ...
-
Mallatt v. Ostrander Ry. & Timber Co.
...premises of the employer from injury." And see Camenzind v. Freeland Furniture Co., 1918, 89 Or. 158, 175, 174 P. 139; Fromme v. Lang & Co., 1929, 131 Or. 501, 281 P. 120; Ludwig v. Zidell, 1941, 167 Or. 488, 498, 118 P.2d 1073; Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 9 Cir., 1926, 10 F.2d 335......