Monforton v. Detroit Pressed-Brick Co.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1897
• Citation: 71 N.W. 586,113 Mich. 39
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MONFORTON v. DETROIT PRESSED-BRICK CO.

71 N.W. 586

113 Mich. 39

MONFORTON v. DETROIT PRESSED-BRICK CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 25, 1897

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; William L. Carpenter, Judge.

Action by Mary E. Monforton, administratrix of Charles Monforton against the Detroit Pressed-Brick Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

B. T Prentis, for appellant.

Robert Young, for appellee.

MOORE J.

Charles Monforton was on March 24, 1894, killed in defendant's brick yard by an uncovered rapidly revolving shaft. This suit was brought by his mother, who had been appointed administratrix, to recover damages for his death. After the testimony was all in, the defendant requested the trial judge to direct a verdict in its favor. The court declined to do this, but upon his own motion submitted this question to the jury: "Was the uncovered shafting open to Charles Monforton's observation during the period of about twenty days in which he was in defendant's employ before his death?" and directed the jury to answer the question "Yes." He then submitted the case to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; then, upon motion of the defendant set the general verdict aside, and entered a verdict upon the special finding in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

It is evident from an inspection of the record that the learned trial judge was in doubt whether the plaintiff had made a case or not, and desired to resolve that doubt before directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; that afterwards he concluded a verdict ought to have been directed in favor of the defendant, for that is the practical result of what was done by him. We shall dispose of the case as though he had directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. If there was any testimony which required the case to be submitted to the jury, the judgment should be set aside; otherwise it should stand. All of the testimony is returned with the record, from which it appears that Charles Monforton, at the time of his death, was 14 years and 8 months old. He was an intelligent boy. One of the witnesses speaks of him as a smart boy. He had never worked in a place where there was shafting or machinery until he entered the employ of defendant on the 1st day of March. The accompanying rough sketch will illustrate the situation of the brick yard.

(Image Omitted)

Young Monforton was employed from March 1st to March 16th in the press room, dusting off bricks with a brush. That was all he was engaged to do at that time. There was testimony tending to show that upon the morning in question he and two other boys were employed to unload a car load of wood. The wood was taken from a car, and placed in a cart, Vivian working in the car, and Kumm driving. They started from southwest of the yard, drove east along a wagon road which runs along the south part of the yard, then north around the east end of the shaft, and then west back to the door of the boiler room, where they unloaded the wood; returning the same way. After Vivian and Charles unloaded the wood, they went into the press room. There was testimony tending to show that Mr. Hileman, foreman of the press room, sent Charles from there to the engine room for some oil. The engineer testified that about a half hour after Charles got through hauling the wood he came in and said Mr. Hileman had sent him for oil that he had come for oil before; that he did not give him the oil, so he went out, and the engineer thought he would come back, and he would give him the oil. He went westerly towards the press room. Soon after the engineer heard that a boy was killed. He ran at once to the shed 50 to 100 feet from the engine room, and found the boy right underneath the shaft in the shed. The shaft was about 200 feet long and 2 1/2 or 3 inches in...