Liermann v. Milwaukee Dry-Dock Co.
Citation | 110 Wis. 599,86 N.W. 182 |
Parties | LIERMANN v. MILWAUKEE DRY-DOCK CO. |
Decision Date | 21 May 1901 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; Orren T. Williams, Judge.
Action by Ernest Liermann, as administrator, against the Milwaukee Dry-Dock Company. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action by the administrator of the estate of August Beyersdorff, deceased, on account of the death of said Beyersdorff, resulting, as alleged, from the negligence of the defendant. From a judgment of nonsuit the plaintiff appeals. The facts appearing in the evidence were substantially as follows: The defendant is a corporation owning and operating a shipyard in Milwaukee upon the south bank of the Menomonee river, which at this point runs east and west. The deceased was a laborer in its employ in the work of the yard. On the 1st day of June, 1898, two long spars were to be unloaded from a scow in the river onto the dock of the yard for the purpose of making masts. Ernest Iwer, who was foreman of the yard, directed a gang of laborers to which the deceased belonged to take the spars from the scow, and put them upon skids upon the dock. Such work had frequently been done before. A part of the gang, in accordance with previous custom, placed two timbers, 14 or 16 feet long, for skids, near the edge of the dock, and at right angles with the river, and supported the same by blocks placed under them. Neither the timbers which were used for skids nor the blocks were in any way defective. After the skids were first placed in position, the west one was taken up by one or two of the gang to use as a pry, and replaced; but, when replaced, the south end of the skid projected over the block on which it rested about a foot. One spar was rolled off from the scow onto the skids in safety, and hauled by horses back to the middle of the skids by means of a chain around it. The deceased, with others, was then directed by Iwer to pull the scow along so as to unload the second spar upon the skids. While engaged in this work, he stepped over the north end of the west skid, and at the same time the man in charge of the horses started them up, and pulled the first spar to the south end of the skids, and the west skid, being unsupported at the extreme end, went down at that end, and the north end flew up, and struck the deceased, inflicting injuries from which he died. There was some testimony tending to show that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
... ... 463; Cunningham ... v. Ft. Pitt Bridge Works (1901), 197 Pa ... 621, 47 A. 486; Liermann v. Milwaukec ... Dry Dock Co. (1901), 110 Wis. 599, 86 N.W. 182; The ... Islands (1886), ... other sons, ranging in age from twelve to twenty-two years ... Innes v. Milwaukee, 103 Wis. 582, ... 79 N.W. 783 ... Two ... thousand one hundred dollars reduced to ... ...
-
Wiskie v. Montello Granite Co.
...932;Adams v. Snow, 100 Wis. 152, 81 N. W. 983;Mielke v. Railroad Co., 103 Wis. 1, 5, 6, 79 N. W. 22, 74 Am. St. Rep. 834;Liermann v. Dry-Dock Co. (Wis.) 86 N. W. 182. For earlier cases in this court, see Toner v. Railway Co., 69 Wis. 197, 198, 31 N. W. 104, 33 N. W. 433. The rule stated is ......
-
Schmidt v. J. G. Johnson Co.
...reasonably have anticipated, and that the negligence, if any, causing the injury, was that of a fellow servant. Liermann v. Milwaukee D. D. Co., 110 Wis. 599, 86 N. W. 182, turns on the point that the negligence was that of a fellow servant, and the risk of which was assumed by deceased. La......
- Groth v. Thomann