Mann v. Oriental Print Works

• Decision Date: 22 June 1875
• Citation: 11 R.I. 152
• Parties: IRVING F. MANN v. ORIENTAL PRINT WORKS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

11 R.I. 152

IRVING F. MANN v. ORIENTAL PRINT WORKS.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 22, 1875

A fireman employed to tend an engine fire was called upon by the engineer to assist in throwing on a belt which worked a pump used to fill the boiler. The fireman being injured by the belt, brought an action for the injury received against the corporation which employed both the engineer and himself.

Held, that if the fireman, although employed only for a fireman, was placed under the orders of the engineer and was by him suddenly called upon to assist in throwing on a belt, out of his own sphere, but within the sphere of duty of the engineer, and was thus subjected to a risk with which he was not acquainted, or to a peculiar and greater risk at that time and of which he was not informed or cautioned, the defendant would be liable.

Held, further, that if the fireman was placed under the engineer as his superior, and this superior had a right to give orders in his department, the case did not come within the principle regulating liability in cases of fellow-servants, and that the engineer must be looked upon as representing the employer.

Held, further, that unless the plaintiff fireman had been instructed not to obey the engineer except in the line of the fireman's employment, the engineer was authorized to call upon him for assistance in any matter within the engineer's department, and the defendant would be liable, even if there was another person who might more properly be called upon.

Held, further, that if the plaintiff fireman was instructed not to obey the engineer out of the line of his employment, and he chose notwithstanding to obey, he could not hold the defendant liable.

Held, further, that if the throwing on and off of the belts was not within the engineer's department, but was confined by the corporation to a belt fixer, the defendant would not be liable.

Semble, that if the person injured was an inferior servant, and was injured by the negligence of a superior servant in the same department, e. g. if he had been placed under a superior fireman by whose neglect he had been injured, the liability would not have accrued, as it might then be argued that he must have known and calculated the risks of such employment.

DEFENDANTS' petition for a new trial.

A fireman, employed to tend fire in an engine in a mill, who was injured by a belt which worked a pump used to fill the boiler, while he was assisting in throwing it off upon his being called to do so by the engineer, cannot recover for such injury against the employer, if the throwing on and off of the belt was not within the engineer's department, but was confined by the employer to a belt fixer.

B. N. & S. S. Lapham, for plaintiff.

Thurston, Ripley & Co. for defendants.

POTTER J.

The plaintiff in this case was employed as a fireman to tend the fire in an engine in the defendants' mill.

Evidence was offered tending to show that when employed he was given to understand he was to obey the orders of the engineer.

The engineer called on the plaintiff to assist in throwing on a belt, which was used to operate the pump which filled the boiler, and in doing this he suffered the injury complained of.

He had several times before been called on to do the same thing, but it would seem that at this time there was a peculiar danger from the condition of the belt and the speed of the machinery.

The defendants claimed that they were not liable: -

1st. Because the engineer and plaintiff were fellow-servants, and there was no evidence that the engineer was an incompetent person.

2d. That there was a belt fixer, or person especially employed to fix the belts in the mill, and that it was not the business of the engineer, or within his department.

First. It is objected that the judge charged that if the engineer was the plaintiff's superior and had a right to give orders in his department which the plaintiff was instructed to obey, the case would not come within the principle regulating liability of employer in case of negligence of a fellow-servant; and the superior must in this regard be looked upon as representing the employer, and if the employer would have been liable if the orders had been given directly by him, he would be liable if they were thus indirectly given through the engineer.

Second. It is objected that, by way of illustration, the judge referred to the case of a...