McGinnis v. Canada Southern Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1882
• Citation: 49 Mich. 466,13 N.W. 819
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MCGINNIS v. CANADA SOUTHERN BRIDGE CO.

13 N.W. 819

49 Mich. 466

MCGINNIS v. CANADA SOUTHERN BRIDGE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 31, 1882

The infancy of an employe does not of itself give him a cause of action against his employer for setting him at dangerous work, if it appears that he was of average intelligence, that his duties were explained to him when he entered upon the employment, and that he had in mind its dangers and the purpose to avoid them.

There is no breach of duty in employing a servant subject to the ordinary risks of the employment if the servant himself is aware of the risks and consents to encounter them.

An employer is not bound to make use of the newest mechanical appliances for the purpose of insuring the safety of his employes, especially if it does not appear that on the whole it would be advantageous to them. So, a railway company is not bound to block its frogs, particularly if it does not appear that in doing so it would not entail greater dangers than it would avert.

A verdict is no precedent and settles nothing but the immediate controversy to which it relates.

Error to Wayne,

Frederick T. Sibley, for plaintiff and appellant.

Ashley Pond, for defendant.

COOLEY, J.

The defendant corporation owns and operates a railroad across the Detroit river by way of Grasse Isle. The plaintiff, then 20 years and 6 months old, engaged in the service of defendant as switchman in December, 1879. He was inexperienced at the time, and the yard-master explained his duties to him. In January, 1880, when he had been employed a little less than two months, his foot was caught in a "frog" while he was engaged about his work, and before he could extricate it an engine ran upon him, inflicting serious injury. Plaintiff understood the danger from frogs before this accident took place, knew that injuries sometimes occurred from persons getting their feet caught in them, and testified that he tried to avoid the danger. After the injury he claimed compensation from the railroad company, and by next friend instituted this suit.

In the trial court the plaintiff claimed to recover on two grounds (1) That he, being immature and inexperienced, was sent by defendant into danger the full extent of which he did not comprehend, and that this was culpable fault on the part of the defendant which should render it liable for all injurious consequences. (2) That there was a well-known and simple device, the use of which would have preluded the danger from which the accident resulted, and that the defendant was negligent in duty to its servants in not procuring and making use of this device, and responsible by reason of that neglect for the injury. The first ground was shown to be untenable by the plaintiff's own evidence. He was past 20 years of age; was not shown to be wanting in average intelligence of those of his age, and his duties were explained to him when he entered upon the employment. He besides understood the very danger into which he fell, and had in mind the purpose to avoid it. It was thus made to appear by his own examination that he was not sent into unknown dangers, and that he was not exposed to risks which he, through immaturity or for any other reason, failed to comprehend. To furnish support for the second ground evidence was introduced that there is a simple device known as blocking the frogs, which is a protection against such accidents as the one from which the plaintiff suffered; that this consists in fitting into the frog a piece of wood cut to its shape that this device at the time of the accident was in use on roads in Canada and was also used to some extent by railroad companies in the United States. It was not shown or claimed that the device was in general use; but plaintiff insisted that his evidence showed that its use would give effectual protection, and he claimed the right to go to the jury on the question whether defendant was not negligent in failing to adopt it. The circuit judge did not assent to this view, and directed a verdict for defendant.

The circuit judge in making this ruling was guided by the decision of this court in Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co. v Gildersleeve, 33 Mich. 133. In that case an action was brought against a railroad company to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff, who was a switchman in its service and had been injured while coupling cars. The breach of duty charged against the railroad company was, that it allowed the use on its road of cars with coupling apparatus of different heights, the effect of which was to expose switchmen to peculiar perils. It was while coupling two of unequal height that the plaintiff was injured. In the decision of the case in this court it was shown that the question involved was not one peculiar to railroad companies, but that it concerned the employer of labor in every branch and kind of business, and that to sustain the plaintiff's case it would be necessary to hold that the employer is under obligations to his servants under all circumstances to make use of the safest known appliances and...