Joch v. Dankwardt

• Decision Date: 30 June 1877
• Citation: 85 Ill. 331,1877 WL 9549
• Parties: CHRISTIAN JOCHv.HENRY DANKWARDT, for use, etc.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

85 Ill. 331

1877 WL 9549 (Ill.)

CHRISTIAN JOCH

v.HENRY DANKWARDT, for use, etc.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1877.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Washington county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding. Mr. WILLIAM WINKELMAN, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. C. W. & E. L. THOMAS, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a suit to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a coal miner, in being lowered into a coal mine of the defendant, in whose employ he was, mining coal. A recovery was had by the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

The giving of two instructions for the plaintiff is assigned for error. The instructions were:

“The court instructs the jury, that proof of the employment of one who had always been a manual laborer or a mule driver, to run a steam engine, raises a presumption of negligence of the master, without showing that he had actual notice of the servant's antecedents, if you believe, from the evidence, that such laborer had been employed and was in charge when plaintiff received the injuries complained of in this suit.”

“The court instructs the jury, that if they find for the plaintiff, he, as the party aggrieved, is entitled to recover, not only for actual expenses, including medical attendance, but also a reasonable compensation for mental and bodily suffering, loss of time, and for any permanent or incurable injury sustained by him, if you believe any has been proved.”

The occasion of the injury was, in being precipitated to the bottom of the mine while being lowered into it in a cage containing the plaintiff and some others, which was operated by means of a steam engine and machinery, which one Schaffer had the charge of, as engineer, and it was claimed that the accident occurred in consequence of his negligent mismanagement as the engineer.

The testimony affording the basis for the first instruction, was to the effect that Schaffer, before he became engineer, was a laborer and drove mules in the mine; that defendant's sons taught him to run the engine; that he had only worked at defendant's mine four or five, or, at most, six months.

This first instruction was manifestly erroneous. What constituted negligence in the employment of an incompetent engineer, was entirely a question of fact for the jury, and it was error for the court to instruct that the fact named in the instruction raised a presumption of negligence....