Moran v. Harris
| Decision Date | 24 April 1884 |
| Citation | 19 N.W. 278,63 Iowa 390 |
| Parties | MORAN v. HARRIS ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Webster District Court.
PLAINTIFF brought this action to recover damages on account of personal injuries sustained by him while in defendant's employ in sinking a coal shaft. There was a general verdict for plaintiff, also certain special findings by the jury. Defendants moved the court to set aside the general verdict and to enter judgment for them on the special findings. The motion to set aside the general verdict was sustained, but the motion for judgment on the special findings was overruled, and a new trial was ordered. Both parties appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Barcroft Bowen & Sickmon, Baylies & Baylies, Hugh Brennan and B. A Williams, for plaintiff.
John F. Duncombe, for defendants.
Defendants were engaged in sinking a coal shaft, and plaintiff was in their employ as a miner, working in said shaft, at the time he received the injuries complained of. The earth and other material taken from the shaft were hoisted to the surface by machinery, consisting of a derrick some eighteen feet high, erected over the mouth of the shaft. There was a pulley at the top of this derrick, and another at the foot. A heavy rope passed over the upper pulley and beneath the lower one. A large tub was attached to one end of this rope, and a team of horses was hitched to the other end. There was an open iron hook attached to the rope at the end next to the team, and this was hooked into the clevis in the double-tree to which the team was hitched. When the tub was to be hoisted from the bottom of the shaft, the team was driven in the direction away from the derrick, and when it was to be lowered into the shaft, the team was either backed towards the derrick, or else the hook was unhooked from the double-tree, and the team turned facing the derrick, when the hook was attached to the ring in the neck-yoke and the team driven towards the derrick. The employes of defendant, who were engaged in the work in the shaft, were lowered into the shaft and hoisted to the surface by this machinery. The accident in which plaintiff received the injuries complained of occurred in the night time. He had come out of the shaft for the purpose of having some repairs made on the tools with which he was working. After these repairs had been made, he returned to the mouth of the shaft, placed his tools in the tub, and got in himself. The hook by some means had become detached from the clevis in the double-tree, and as soon as plaintiff stepped into the tub it fell with him to the bottom of the shaft. One of the defendants was in charge of the team at the time.
Plaintiff's claim is that these appliances for hoisting and lowering were defective and dangerous; that, when the tub was at the top of the shaft, the open hook at the double-tree was drawn to the ground by the weight of the rope and double-tree, and was liable to become unhooked from the clevis; and that this was known to defendants, and that they were guilty of negligence in not furnishing proper and safe machinery and appliances for doing this work.
He also claims that there was actual and negligent mismanagement of the team and appliances by the defendant who was in charge of them at the time of the accident.
Defendants deny that the appliances were defective, or that they were guilty of any negligence, either as to the character of the machinery used, or in the management of the team and machinery at the time of the accident; and they allege that defendant was guilty of contributory negligence. They also claim that he waived all right to recover for the injury, by remaining at the work at which he was employed without objection, after he knew the danger to which he was exposed, and without any inducement to remain, except his wages.
The jury found specially that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care at the time he was hurt; that the accident was caused by the open hook becoming unhooked from the clevis in the double-tree; that plaintiff did not know, before or at the time of his injury, that the rope was attached to the double-tree with an open hook, but that, by the exercise of reasonable care, he might have known that an open hook was being used, and might also have known the manner in which the hoisting apparatus was used, and the kind of machinery used, and the defects and dangers in the machinery and in the manner in which it was used.
They also found that an open hook was not a reasonable or safe connection between the rope and double-tree, when used in the manner and for the purpose for which the machinery in question was used.
They also found that the defendant who had charge of the team at the time of the accident did not use proper care and precaution.
I. As to plaintiff's appeal: The district court set aside the general verdict and granted a new trial. Plaintiff's appeal is from this order. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial