Mason v. Edison Mach. Works

• Decision Date: 10 August 1886
• Citation: 28 F. 228
• Parties: MASON v. EDISON MACH. WORKS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

28 F. 228

MASON v. EDISON MACH. WORKS.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

August 10, 1886

Herman Shook, for plaintiff.

John C Tomlinson, for defendant.

WHEELER J.

The defendant is a corporation, and has a factory where dynamo engines are made and shipped. James Martin was foreman of common laborers employed there, in handling and moving heavy parts of the machinery, and had full control over them for that purpose, and hired and discharged them subject to the approval of the superintendent. He hired the plaintiff to work there as such laborer. While the plaintiff was employed there, he, and six other laborers, by direction of Martin took a bed-plate of an engine, nine or ten feet long, about three and a half feet wide, and three inches thick, and weighing about 1,500 pounds, set it on edge, and rolled it under a hoisting apparatus, for the purpose of raising it to put a truck under it. While they were holding it in that position Martin called away four of them, and then two, and left the plaintiff to hold it alone. It turned over on the plaintiff and broke one bone of one of his legs, and otherwise injured him. This action is brought to recover damages for this injury. On the trial the plaintiff's testimony tended to show that at least four men were necessary to hold the bed-plate when Martin ordered the last two away; that it got the advantage of him so that he could not escape, and that he called for help, but no one came, and it fell upon him without his fault. The defendant's testimony tended to show that the sling for raising it had been put on, and it had been raised so that one could hold it safely when the men were called away, and that the plaintiff might have got out of the way when it came over, and was injured by his own fault. The defendant moved for a verdict on the ground that Martin and the plaintiff were fellow-servants, and that the defendant was not liable for anything done by Martin in the course of their employment. The court denied this motion, and charged the jury, in substance, that if Martin, by virtue of the authority to control the men conferred upon him by the defendant, directed them to leave the plaintiff in a dangerous position with reference to the bed-plate, where he could not control it, and they did so leave him, in obedience to his commands, and by means of their leaving him it came down upon him, and injured him, without his fault, the defendant would be liable for the injury, although not liable for anything Martin might have done as a workman at work with the plaintiff, as he and other workmen worked together. The case has now been heard on a motion for a new trial on account of the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant, and on instruction that the defendant might be held liable for what was done by direction of Martin.

The decided cases bearing upon this subject have been thoroughly presented and discussed upon the argument of this motion, and particularly those made by the courts of the state of New York. There does not appear to be any statute of that state upon the subject, however, and this question is to be decided upon the principles of general law, as to...