Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Swift

• Decision Date: 22 December 1904
• Citation: 72 N.E. 737,213 Ill. 307
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. SWIFT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

213 Ill. 307

72 N.E. 737

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

v.SWIFT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1904.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by James F. Swift against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed by the Appellate Court, defendant appeals. Reversed.W. A. Howett (J. G. Drennan, of counsel), for appellant.

Francis W. Walker and Albert G. Welch, for appellee.

This was an action on the case, brought in the circuit court of Cook county on September 25, 1897, by James F. Swift, the appellee, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, appellant, to recover damages for a personal injury received by appellee on November 10, 1896, on account of the falling of a pile driver through the alleged negligence of appellant. On January 7, 1898, a declaration consisting of one count was filed, in which it was alleged that on November 10, 1896, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, engaged in repairing a bridge across the Illinois river at La Salle, Ill.; that near the bridge was a pile driver, upon and fastened to a boat or float; that on the day aforesaid plaintiff's foreman ordered plaintiff to go down to the pile driver, climb to the top thereof, and bring to said foreman a piece of tackle and pulley which was fastened to the top of the pile driver; that the defendant carelessly and negligently caused the pile driver and float to be so arranged and constructed that when the plaintiff, with due care, ascended to the top of the pile driver to remove the tackle, the fastenings which bound the pile driver to the float gave way, and the pile driver fell and precipitated the plaintiff into the river, whereby he was injured. Appellant filed the general issue to this declaration. Afterwards, on June 27, 1901, the plaintiff filed seven additional counts to his declaration. The first of these counts charged the negligence of the defendant to have consisted in not having the pile driver secured or fastened to the boat or float; the second and third, negligence in permitting the pile driver to be insufficiently and improperly secured and fastened to the float; the fourth, negligence in failing to prevent plaintiff from going upon or ascending the pile driver; the fifth and sixth, the same negligence as the original declaration; and the seventh, negligencein permitting the pile driver to become and remain unsafe and insecure. On June 28, 1901, the defendant filed the general issue to the additional counts, and on September 27, 1902, filed a plea of the statute of limitations to all the additional counts. A demurrer was interposed to the last-mentioned plea, and was sustained. A trial was had before a jury, and a verdict was returned for $20,000 damages, upon which judgment was rendered, and an appeal was taken to the Appellate Court for the First District. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, and the railroad company appealed to this court.

The facts, as shown by the evidence, are substantially as follows:

On November 10, 1896, while working for the defendant on a bridge crossing the Illinois river near La Salle, plaintiff, who was employed as a bridge carpenter, was directed by the superintendent in control of the workmen to go with a fellow workman, named Morphew, to a scow or flatboat, near the north bank of the river, and about 150 feet east of the bridge. The superintendent's order, according to Swift's testimony, was in these words: ‘I want you to go down to the river and get a pair of sheave blocks that hang on the top of the pile driver that sits on the barge.’ The scow or barge was standing in the water, and extended lengthwise in an easterly and westerly direction. The pile driver stood on the east end of the scow. Formerly an engine used to operate the pile driver had occupied the west end, but it had been removed some time prior to the date of the injury. The west end of the scow rested on the bank of the river, while the east end was in deeper water, and the scow and pile driver were inclined to the east.

The pile driver consisted of two large upright timbers, 36 feet in length, resting in the east ends of two timbers known as ‘bed sills,’ and at right angles with said bed sills. Two other timbers extended from the top of the upright timbers diagonally down to the other ends of the bed sills-the bed sills being 12 feet long-constituting a support for the upright timbers. A ladder leading from the scow to the top of the pile driver was constructed on the diagonal timbers. The eastern extremity of the bed sills extended to the eastern edge of the scow, and the upright timbers extended directly up from this eastern edge. The pile driver weighed about 5,000 pounds, was 36 feet high, and not more than 12 feet across at the base from east to west. The timbers of the base were fastened to the scow by drift bolts and strips of iron to keep the base from shifting its position. Two sets of ropes and sheave blocks, referred to by the witnesses as ‘falls,’ had been installed to prevent the pile driver from tipping and falling over. As the pile driver stood on the scow prior to the time of the injury, the falls extended from either side of the pile driver at the top down to ropes attached to posts or timber heads on the scow west of the pile driver. Each set consisted of two sheave blocks and the necessary rope to form four strands when in position on the pile driver, and a hauling line by means of which the strands could be loosened or tightened, and the distance between the sheave blocks increased or diminished. One sheave block of each set of falls was fastened or hooked to the top of the pile driver, and the other to a rope, referred to as a pennant line, which was fastened to the timber head or post on the scow west of the pile driver. The hauling line was fastened to the bed sill of the pile driver. In order to unfasten the sheave block from the top of the pile driver or from the pennant line, it was necessary to first release the hauling line from the bed sill, whereby the ropes of the falls would become slack.

Upon reaching the scow the plaintiff immediately started up the ladder of the pile driver, without having had any conversation with Morphew concerning the work to be done by either in taking down the sheave blocks. While plaintiff was ascending the ladder, Morphew unfastened the hauling line of the south set of falls. Plaintiff, upon reaching the top of the pile driver, unfastened the sheave block of that set of falls, and Morphew, standing on the scow, detached the sheave block of the same set from the pennant line which connected it with the timber head. Plaintiff brought the sheave block removed by him down the ladder to the scow, and he and Morphew, by pulling on the ropes, brought the two sheave blocks removed by them together, and Morphew carried them from the scow to the land, and proceeded to prepare a guy line to replace the falls which had just been removed, while plaintiff again ascended the ladder to remove the other sheave block which was attached to the pile driver. A strong wind was blowing and the scow was rocking at this time. When Swift reached the top of the pile driver, and while attempting to detach the sheave block from its fastening, the pile driver tipped and fell over to the east into the river, carrying the plaintiff with it, and he received the injuries complained of.

After the injury it was found that the hauling line of the north or remaining set of falls had been unfastened from the bed sill, or that the line had broken, and this had allowed the rope to run back through the sheave block, and had prevented the falls from holding the pile driver. Plaintiff and Morphew were the only persons on the scow, and both denied having released the hauling line from the bed sill. The testimony of appellee indicates that the line broke, thus permitting the fall of the pile driver. After removing the first set of falls, no lines, ropes, or other supports were fastened to the pile driver to take its place. The bolts fastening the pile driver to the scow pulled out of the timbers of the scow when the pile driver fell into the river.

Plaintiff had never worked on the pile driver in question, had never seen it in operation, and had not been on the scow prior to the time he was injured; nor had he received any information concerning the pile driver or its fastenings, other than what he observed on this occasion. He had seen pile drivers before, and had worked around them. Prior to this time he had worked for the Wabash Railroad for a period of eight months, during all of which time the train which he accompanied had a pile driver attached to one of its cars. He had also worked about pile drivers for the Rock Island Railroad, and a few weeks previous to...