Hobbs v. Brush Electric Light Co.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1889 |
| Citation | 75 Mich. 550,42 N.W. 965 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOBBS v. BRUSH ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; REILLY, Judge.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to trim its lamps and, while so employed, fell from a pole to the ground, a distance of 25 feet, and was severely injured. He alleges that the accident was caused by the negligence of the company in not providing a proper guard to sustain him while in the act of cleaning the lamp. This guard was a loop of wire which was suspended from the top of the lamp frame, and passed around under his arms, and, in performing his work this wire was required to sustain nearly the weight of his body. The defect claimed was that this wire was too light and lacked the requisite strength. He had been in the employment of the company several months in the capacity of trimmer, and had trimmed this lamp, and knew of the unsafe nature and condition of this guard for a long time. It was his duty, under his employment, when he observed any defects in the appliances or apparatus in use by the company to notify it promptly of such defect. He notified the head trimmer of the unsafe size of this wire guard, and he said he would have it attended to, but it was not done. A few days before the accident he reported it to one of the line men but nothing was done. After his injury, which occurred on the 2d day of January, he was taken to the hospital, where he stayed until he recovered sufficient to walk out, about the middle of March. He went to work again for the company about the 20th of March, and was employed in the shop for a short time, repairing lamps and cleaning them, when he was set at work again trimming lamps. While he was at the hospital the company continued to pay to his wife the same wages he received while at work. They also paid his hospital bills. The wages and bills so paid amounted to $162.50. After seven or eight days from his injury he knew that his wages were being paid to his wife. He continued to work until the latter part of August, when he took a day off for recreation. When he appeared the next day at the office the superintendent asked him if he had come to quit. He replied "I am here," and he directed Mr. Welton to pay him off, and he did so. He then went and saw Mr. Leggett, the president of the company, and he advised him to go back and talk with the superintendent. After some talk the superintendent told him to come again on Monday. At this time he told plaintiff if he would sign an agreement to clear the company from all responsibility he would give him steady employment as trimmer. He said he paid him his wages while he was sick, and his hospital expenses, and plaintiff told him if he would give him steady work he would sign it. A release of all actions, causes of action, and damages was then prepared by the company, and plaintiff signed it "be...
To continue reading
Request your trial