Kraczek v. Falk Co.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1910
• Citation: 126 N.W. 30,142 Wis. 570
• Parties: KRACZEK v. FALK CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

142 Wis. 570

126 N.W. 30

KRACZEK

v.FALK CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 26, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Warren D. Tarrant, Judge.

Action by Frank M. Kraczek against the Falk Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Action for damages for personal injury. The plaintiff was employed as a chainman in defendant's foundry, and had been so employed for five or six months before he was injured. There were a number of cranes used in the foundry that were operated by electricity and that ran on tracks above the floor upon which the work of molding was carried on. These cranes were used to convey buckets containing molten metal from one part of the factory to another and to convey the empty buckets after the iron was poured into the molds or flasks, and also to move the “flasks,” “copes,” and “drags” from place to place. The top part of a mold or flask is called a “cope” and the bottom part the “drag.” The hoisting cable was fastened to a stationary shieve at the top and ran through to a lower shieve, which hoisted up and down with the cable. At the bottom of the lower shieve there was a hook to which four chains were attached, each having a hook at the lower end. The copes had four handles attached thereto, into which the hooks were inserted when it was desired to elevate or move them. The crew appears to have consisted of six men; the craneman who operated the crane, the molder, who appears to be the party under whose supervision operations were carried on, and four chainmen, whose work consisted in following the crane and hooking the chains into objects that were to be moved, and unhooking the chains when the movement was made. On the day of the accident a large cope 12 in length by 10 feet in width, and weighing about 9 tons, had been removed from a mold and set upon supports about 4 or 4 1/2 feet from the floor. It was not convenient for the plaintiff to handle his chain from the position in which he was when the cope was put in place, and the molder in charge of the work attended to one of the chains in his stead. After the chains were unhooked from the handles, the craneman started to move his crane away and one of the chains caught on the flange of the cope and tipped the same off its supports so that it struck the plaintiff and broke both of his legs.

Numerous acts of negligence on the part of the defendant were alleged in the complaint. But one was submitted to the jury for consideration, the court evidently being of the opinion that the evidence did not warrant the submission of any other. Such negligence consisted in the failure of the defendant to promulgate proper rules governing the movement of cranes, to the end that the same might not be moved without some proper signal or warning. The name of the chainman who had charge of the chain that caused the cope to tip over was George White, and he was stationed at the southwest corner of the cope.

The jury found (1) that the defendant negligently failed to promulgate proper rules and regulations for the operation of the crane, by the movement of which the plaintiff was injured; (2) that the failure to promulgate such rules was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; (3) that the cope was not caused to tip by reason of the hook of the chain at the southwest corner of the cope catching under the upper flange of the cope; (4) that the molder, George White, did not handle his hook in a negligent manner; (5) that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence; (6) that the plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $5,500. From a judgment entered on such verdict the defendant appeals.

Doe & Ballhorn, for appellant.

W. H. Timlin, Jr. (Glicksman, Gold & Corrigan, of counsel), for respondent.

BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The third and fourth findings made by the jury are contrary to the direct and positive evidence of at least two witnesses, and are not supported by any evidence whatever. It is true that the plaintiff, after testifying two or three times that he did not know whether the hook at the southwest corner of the cope was caught in the handle or whether it had been removed therefrom and caught on the flange of the cope after the crane started to move, did say on redirect examination that the hook was caught in the handle. On recross-examination he explained his apparently inconsistent statements by saying that what he meant was that the hook was either hooked in the handle or caught under the flange, and that he did not know which. Clearly, this evidence raised no issue as against that of the chainman, George White, who had hold of the chain, and who testified positively that the hook had been removed from the handle and tipped the cope over by catching on the flange. The craneman corroborated White's evidence. The evidence is just as conclusive that White was negligent in permitting his hook to come in contact with the flange. The only duty the chainman had was to follow the crane and hook the chains into objects that were to be moved, and unhook them when the movement was made. In reference to this matter, the plaintiff testified: “The chainman's duties consist in making hitches for the crane; that is, in hitching the hooks of these four chains or any other chains that the crane carried, and unhitching. That is substantially all the chainman has to do; that is, what is called in the foundry to follow the crane. And that was my work. * * * I knew, and everybody else knew, the chains had got to be kept away or held away from the cope when the cope was moved. * * * If the hooks were not held away from the cope they would come right down against...