McIntyre v. Detroit Safe Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1902
• Citation: 129 Mich. 385,89 N.W. 39
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: McINTYRE v. DETROIT SAFE CO. et al.

89 N.W. 39

129 Mich. 385

McINTYRE v. DETROIT SAFE CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 11, 1902

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Joseph W. Donovan, Judge.

Action by John McIntyre against the Detroit Safe Company and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Tarsney, Hayes, Lawson & Fitzpatrick, for appellant.

Gray &amp Gray (Edwin F. Conely, of counsel), for appellees.

MOORE J.

This action is for the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as the result of an injury suffered on the 14th of January, 1898. The defendants are corporations doing business in the city of Detroit. For many years before 1890 the Detroit Safe Company operated a large plant between Antoine and Beaubien streets. In 1896 the Pfaudler Company commenced to do business for themselves in Detroit. The buildings of the plant occupied by the defendants were separated by a private alley about 12 feet in width. Situated in this private alley, and near the Fort street entrance thereof, was a large, 10-ton platform Fairbank scale, which was used originally by the defendant safe company in its business, and latterly by both defendants. The platform of the scale was 16 feet long and about 9 feet wide. After the Pfaudler Company located in Detroit, it occupied that part of the old safe company's plant lying to the east of the private alley, the safe company continuing to keep that part lying to the west side of the alley. The scales were erected in 1889 or 1890. The beam of the scale is inside that part of the plant occupied by the safe company. At the time of the accident the Pfaudler Company was the owner of the land upon which the entire plant was built. It is claimed by the defendant Pfaudler Company that on the purchase of that part of the safe company's plant used in their business they bought everything in the way of machinery in the building, tools, etc., but that they did not buy the scales. The scales do not appear to have been excepted from the terms of the transfer. Mr. Page, the treasurer of the safe works and manager of the Pfaudler works, says that the Pfaudler Company did not purchase the scales 'simply because they belonged to the safe company, and the beam was in their office, and nothing was said about the scales at all.' The Pfaudler Company had the use of the scales, and they were used by it to weigh what was sought to be weighed in this case, the safe company consenting to the use of the scales by the codefendant. On the morning of January 14, 1898, the plaintiff and one George Morton, teamsters in the employ of the Sheddon Cartage Company, hauled a load of steel from the Lake Shore Depot to the plant of the Pfaudler Company. The load consisted of 20 sheets of pressed steel 23 feet 9 3/4 inches long, and with a combined weight of 14,000 pounds. The truck and equipage weighed, one witness says, about 4,000 to 5,000 pounds, while a witness for plaintiff says it weighed 2,200 or 2,300 pounds. Plaintiff had hauled similar material to the premises of the Pfaudler Company before this time, where it was weighed upon the same scales. He drove his load upon the scales. The scales gave way at the southwest corner, causing the sheets of steel to slide from their places, and the plaintiff was caught between the steel and the building of the safe company, and was severely injured. It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that the timbers used in the construction of the scales had rotted, allowing one of the bolts which sustained the platform of the scales to pull through; and that defendants, by a proper inspection, would have learned of the defect; and it was negligent in them to allow plaintiff to drive on the scale under the circumstances disclosed by the record. It was the claim of the defendants that, if there was any defect, it was a hidden one. It is also claimed the scales were overloaded; that the load was not properly placed on the scales. The circuit judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.

The plaintiff insists that, as he was engaged upon the premises at the invitation of the defendants, for the purpose of weighing steel belonging to the Pfaudler Vacuum Fermentation Company, it was the duty of the defendants to see that the premises and appliances used were in a reasonably safe condition. The defendants admit that ordinarily, if there was a known defect, the defendants would be liable, unless the plaintiff was warned of the danger; but they insist there was no defect known to the defendants, and none they had reason to anticipate. The testimony was conflicting. The witnesses for plaintiff testified that the timbers of the scale were rotten, and because of this the bolt head pulled down into the timber. The testimony on the other side tended to show there was no decay in the timber. The evidence discloses these scales were set in a pit dug in the ground. In the four sides of the pit was built a stone wall, with pockets in it, into which the ends of the levers which supported the platform could be passed and attached to bolts, which ran up through heavy timbers, which were placed on top of the wall. On the top of the timbers was a heavy planking, and upon the top of the platform there was also heavy planking, the top of the scales coming a little above the surface of the ground. This structure was exposed to the weather and to the influence of the earth coming against the sides of the timbers. It is evident the timbers were subjected to more or less moisture, which would have a tendency to cause decay. In Morton v. Railroad Co., 81 Mich. 432, 46 N.W. 111, it is said: 'The rule may now be considered settled in this state, as well as in most of the states, not only that a master is bound to use all reasonable care in providing safe tools and appliances for the use of workmen in his employ, but that this is a duty which cannot be delegated to another so as to relieve him from personal responsibility. Johnson v. Spear, 76 Mich. 139, 42 N.W. 1092, 15 Am. St. Rep. 298; Van Dusen v. Letellier, 78 Mich. 492, 44 N.W. 572; Brown v Gilchrist, 80 Mich. 56, 45 N.W. 82, 20 Am. St. Rep. 496. To view preceding link please click here The duty of the master to his employ� in this respect is clearly and well stated by Mr. Justice Morse in Van Dusen v Letellier, just cited (at page 502, 78 Mich., and page 575, 44 N. W.): 'It is well settled by all...