Miller v. Centralia Pulp & Water Power Co.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1907
• Citation: 134 Wis. 316,113 N.W. 954
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: MILLER v. CENTRALIA PULP & WATER POWER CO.

134 Wis. 316

113 N.W. 954

MILLER

v.CENTRALIA PULP & WATER POWER CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 26, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wood County; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Action by John Miller against the Centralia Pulp & Water Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in falling from an elevator in defendant's pulp and paper mill. Plaintiff alleges that the injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant in failing to provide a safe place to work. For nine or ten years previous to January 31, 1905, plaintiff had been employed by the defendant in connection with the operation of a small wood saw located outside of defendant's mill. Shortly after 7 o'clock on the morning of January 31, 1905, he was directed to haul “pulp” from the lower section of the mill to a room in the upper part of the mill, called the “beater” room. In hauling pulp to the beater room, plaintiff was obliged to pull a truck loaded with the pulp over a platform leading from the mill entrance to the platform of an elevator. After the truck had been raised to the beater room, the truck was pulled along the floor to the beater room. After unloading the first load, plaintiff returned with his truck to the elevator, and the elevator was lowered to the platform. While the elevator was up at the floor on which the beater room is located, the light near the elevator shaft on the first floor had been extinguished along with the other lights in the mill. This left the elevator platform without sufficient light for plaintiff to see to perform his duties. In this condition of the light, plaintiff stepped around the truck to push it from the elevator platform, fell from the platform to the bottom of the elevator shaft, and sustained the injuries complained of. Plaintiff claims that the turning off of the electric light on the ground floor rendered the place so dark as to be unsafe. The light had been turned off by the electrician in the mill, who had been instructed to use the lights only when required for the operation of the mill. One switch was used for turning on and off the lights in the mill. By a special verdict the jury found that in failing to furnish and maintain a light at the place where plaintiff was injured there was a want of ordinary care on the part of the defendant; that this was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; that the absence of guards or protection upon the elevator was not the proximate cause of the injuries; that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, and had not assumed the risk of sustaining injuries as complained of; and that defendant ought to have anticipated that such injury might probably result. They assessed plaintiff's damages at $5,000. This is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff's favor.

Vilas, Vilas & Freeman, for appellant.

D. D. Conway (Daniel H. Grady, of counsel), for respondent.

SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Appellant avers that the court erred in holding defendant liable for the negligence found by the jury. The jury found by their verdict that the want of a sufficient light on the elevator platform at the time of the accident was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It appears from the evidence, as above stated, that the want of sufficient light at the time and place of accident resulted from the turning off of the electric lights by the electrician in charge of the lights at the mill. He was empowered by the defendant and charged with the duty of turning the electric lights on and off, as he might find necessary under the varying conditions of the natural light. The defendant had furnished all the light appliances necessary for the proper conduct of its business, and had committed to the electrician the duty of operating these appliances whenever it was necessary to furnish artificial light for the conduct of its business at the mill. The issue upon this branch of the case is whether or not it was the master's duty, under the facts and circumstances shown, to turn on the light at this place so as to have sufficient light for the employés to do their work, or whether turning on light at this place was an operative detail of the business, the...