Ness v. Great Northern Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1913
• Docket Number: 81912
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

142 N.W. 165

25 N.D. 572

ARTHUR NESS v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

May 1, 1913

Rehearing denied June 18, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County, C. W. Buttz, J.

From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Reversed with directions.

Judgment set aside and judgment entered in defendants' favor.

Murphy & Duggan, for appellant.

The burden was upon plaintiff to establish that the defendant failed to use ordinary care to have on hand a supply of suitable blocking. Cregan v. Marston, 126 N.Y. 568 22 Am. St. Rep. 854, 27 N.E. 952.

The master cannot be held liable for injuries sustained from the use of defective material by the servant, when there was sufficient suitable and sound material on hand from which the servant might choose. Thyng v. Fitchburg R. Co. 156 Mass. 13, 32 Am. St. Rep. 425, 30 N.E. 169; Prescott v Ball Engine Co. 176 Pa. 459, 53 Am. St. Rep. 683, 35 A 224; Webber v. Piper, 109 N.Y. 496, 17 N.E. 216; Harley v. Buffalo Car Mfg. Co. 142 N.Y. 31, 36 N.E. 813; Kaare v. Troy Steel & I. Co. 139 N.Y. 369, 34 N.E. 901; Ross v. Walker, 139 Pa. 42, 23 Am. St. Rep. 160, 21 A. 157, 159; Kehoe v. Allen, 92 Mich. 464, 31 Am. St. Rep. 608, 52 N.W. 740; Hefferen v. Northern P. R. Co. 45 Minn. 471, 48 N.W. 1, 526, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 254; Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Petty, 67 Miss. 255, 19 Am. St. Rep. 304, 7 So. 351; Moran v. Brown, 27 Mo.App. 487; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Brown, 20 C. C. A. 147, 34 U.S. App. 759, 73 F. 970; Allen v. Great Western & Ft. S. Iron Co. 160 Mass. 557, 36 N.E. 581.

Where the master has supplied an adequate and accessible stock of suitable appliances from which to make selection, and the imperfection of an instrumentality selected is or ought to have been apparent to the servant who selected it, the master cannot be held liable. 2 Labatt, Mast. & S. § 603, citing cases; 2 Labatt, Mast. & S. § 621, and cases cited; Toohey v. Equitable Gas Co. 179 Pa. 437, 36 A. 314, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 185; Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 50 Minn. 160, 52 N.W. 378; Campbell v. New Jersey Dry Dock & Transp. Co. 61 N.J.L. 382, 39 A. 658, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 191; Maloney v. United States Rubber Co. 169 Mass. 347, 47 N.E. 1012; Ellsbury v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. 172 Mass. 130, 70 Am. St. Rep. 248, 51 N.E. 415.

Opinion evidence cannot be presented to the jury when the facts in the case can be presented in such manner that jurors of ordinary intelligence and experience in the affairs of life can understand and duly appreciate them. Meehan v. Great Northern R. Co. 13 N.D. 440, 101 N.W. 183; Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N.Y. 507, 49 Am. Rep. 544; Muldowney v. Illinois C. R. Co. 36 Iowa 462; Bemis v. Central Vermont R. Co. 58 Vt. 636, 3 A. 531; Ouverson v. Grafton, 5 N.D. 281, 65 N.W. 676.

It is the duty of the master to use ordinary care in his efforts to supply suitable apparatus with which his servant is to work. His duty is not measured by the actual condition of the apparatus, but by the care he exercised, in its selection. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mounce, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1378, 71 S.W. 518.

The master is not an insurer. Lang v. Bailes, 19 N.D. 582, 125 N.W. 892.

It is the master's duty to exercise reasonable care in his efforts to provide a safe place in which his servant is to labor, and in furnishing apparatus with which he is to work. Hughley v. Wabasha, 69 Minn. 245, 72 N.W. 78; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Roy, 71 Neb. 600, 99 N.W. 231; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Bell, 75 Tex. 50, 12 S.W. 321; Lincoln Street R. Co. v. Cox, 48 Neb. 807, 67 N.W. 740; F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 32 C. C. A. 309, 60 U.S. App. 661, 89 F. 677; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Oyster, 58 Neb. 1, 78 N.W. 359; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Beall, Tex. Civ. App. , 43 S.W. 606; Armour & Co. v. Russell, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 602, 75 C. C. A. 416, 144 F. 614; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Garner, 78 Ill.App. 281; Belleville Pump & S. Works v. Bender, 69 Ill.App. 189; Lancaster Cotton Oil Co. v. White, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 608, 75 S.W. 339.

The vice of an erroneous charge upon the law is not cured by a later correct statement of the law. The jury does not know which one is correct, and invariably the one most favorable to plaintiff, in such cases, is adopted by the jury, and prejudice to defendant is presumed. Armour & Co. v. Russell, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 602, 75 C. C. A. 416, 144 F. 614; Lincoln Street R. Co. v. Cox, 48 Neb. 807, 67 N.W. 740; F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 32 C. C. A. 309, 60 U.S. App. 661, 89 F. 677; State v. Kruse, 19 N.D. 207, 124 N.W. 385; First Nat. Bank v. Lowrey Bros. 36 Neb. 290, 54 N.W. 568; Bryant v. Modern Woodmen, 86 Neb. 372, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 326, 125 N.W. 621, 21 Ann. Cas. 365; Barr v. State, 45 Neb. 458, 63 N.W. 856.

There was error in the taxation of costs, or witnesses' fees. Such fees are prescribed by statute, and are only allowed for attendance before the court. Rev. Codes 1905, § 2615.

Constructive presence of witnesses is not sufficient. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1178; McArthur v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. Rep. 635, 57 S.W. 847; The Michigan, 52 F. 509; State v. Willis, 79 Iowa 326, 44 N.W. 699.

Fredrick T. Cuthbert and Arthur R. Smythe, for respondent.

The master must use ordinary and reasonable care not to subject his servant to unreasonable or extraordinary dangers by sending him to work on dangerous machines or with dangerous tools and appliances. Thomp. Neg. §§ 3786-3794.

The master must inspect the place and the appliances, and he is chargeable with knowledge of what a reasonable inspection would disclose. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Harper, 44 Ark. 524; Van Dusen v. Letellier, 78 Mich. 492, 44 N.W. 572; Siemsen v. Oakland, S. L. & H. Electric R. Co. 134 Cal. 494, 66 P. 672; Eaton v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 163 N.Y. 391, 79 Am. St. Rep. 600, 57 N.E. 609, 8 Am. Neg. Rep. 103; Nord Deutscher Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Ingebregsten, 57 N.J.L. 402, 51 Am. St. Rep. 604, 31 A. 619, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 673; Tedford v. Los Angeles Electric Co. 134 Cal. 76, 54 L.R.A. 85, 66 P. 76; Walkowski v. Penokee & G. Consol. Mines, 115 Mich. 629, 41 L.R.A. 33, 73 N.W. 895.

He is also obliged to repair and to keep in a reasonably safe condition machinery used by his servants. Higgins v. Williams, 114 Cal. 176, 45 P. 1041; Beeson v. Green Mountain Gold Min. Co. 57 Cal. 20, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 461; Elledge v. National City & O. R. Co. 100 Cal. 282, 38 Am. St. Rep. 291, 34 P. 720; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Warrek, 28 C. C. A. 540, 55 U.S. App. 437, 84 F. 866; Bailey v. Rome, W. & O. R. Co. 139 N.Y. 302, 34 N.E. 918; Moynihan v. Hills Co. 146 Mass. 586, 4 Am. St. Rep. 348, 16 N.E. 574, 15 Am. Neg. Cas. 602; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Dunham, 49 Tex. 181; Carter v. Oliver Oil Co. 34 S.C. 211, 27 Am. St. Rep. 815, 13 S.E. 419; Jones v. Phillips, 39 Ark. 26, 43 Am. Rep. 264, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 291; Gillenwater v. Madison & I. R. Co. 5 Ind. 339, 61 Am. Dec. 101; Wells v. Coe, 9 Colo. 159, 11 P. 50, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 587; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334; Rice v. King Philip Mills, 144 Mass. 237, 59 Am. Rep. 80, 11 N.E. 101.

Lund was in defendant's employ. He was doing his work in the ordinary and recognized manner, and was not negligent. But, if he was negligent, the defendant would still be liable where Lund's negligence commingled with the unsafe and defective machinery to cause the injury. Rev. Codes 1905, § 4400, 7 Thomp. Neg. § 4858; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Anthes, 54 C. C. A. 504, 117 F. 118; Colley v. Southern Cotton Oil Co. 120 Ga. 258, 47 S.E. 932; Southern Bauxite Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Fuller, 116 Ga. 695, 43 S.E. 64; Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. Moran, 210 Ill. 9, 71 N.E. 38; American Tin-Plate Co. v. Williams, 30 Ind.App. 46, 65 N.E. 304; Buehner v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. 124 Iowa 445, 104 Am. St. Rep. 354, 100 N.W. 345; Tradewater Coal Co. v. Johnson, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1777, 61 L.R.A. 161, 72 S.W. 274; McGinn v. McCormick, 109 La. 396, 33 So. 382; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Hutchens, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 343, 80 S.W. 415; Czarecki v. Seattle & S. F. R. & Nav. Co. 30 Wash. 288, 70 P. 750; Grant v. Keystone Lumber Co. 119 Wis. 229, 100 Am. St. Rep. 883, 96 N.W. 535; Ruemmeli-Braun Co. v. Cahill, 14 Okla. 422, 79 P. 260.

On defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the trial court and the Supreme Court will assume the evidence of plaintiff undisputed, and will give to it the most favorable construction. Northern P. R. Co. v. Vidal, 106 C. C. A. 661, 184 F. 707; Bohl v. Dell Rapids, 15 S.D. 619, 91 N.W. 315; Marshall v. Harney Peak Tin Min. Mill & Mfg. Co. 1 S.D. 350, 47 N.W. 290; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Stebbins, 15 S.D. 280, 89 N.W. 674; Sanford v. Duluth & D. Elevator Co. 2 N.D. 10, 48 N.W. 434; Spokane Grain Co. v. Great Northern Exp. Co. 55 Wash. 545, 104 P. 794; Roe v. Standard Furniture Co. 41 Wash. 546, 83 P. 1109; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Futrell, 141 Ky. 847, 133 S.W. 983.

A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be reviewed or disturbed by the appellate court on appeal. Klein v Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 12 Cal.App. 285, 107 P. 147; Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Boyd, 44 Colo. 119, 96 P. 781; Murphy v. Southern P. Co. 31 Nev. 120, 101 P. 322, 21 Ann. Cas. 502; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630, 77 Ann. Cas. 277; Tacoma v. Bonnell, 58 Wash. 593, 109 P. 60; Chicago City R. Co. v. McClain, 211 Ill. 589, 71 N.E. 1103; Nortonsville Coal Co. v. Whited, Ky. , 124 S.W. 397; Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Blum, Ky. , 125 S.W. 300; Parker v. United R. Co. 154 Mo.App. 126, 133 S.W. 137; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Dominguez, Tex. Civ. App. , 135 S.W. 681; Buel v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 81 Neb. 430, 116 N.W. 299; Rathjen v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 85 Neb. 808, 124 N.W....