Norman v. Wabash R. Co.

• Citation: 62 F. 727
• Decision Date: 28 May 1894
• Docket Number: 163.
• Parties: NORMAN v. WABASH R. CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

62 F. 727

NORMAN v. WABASH R. CO.

No. 163.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 28, 1894

In an action for personal injuries by an employe, his evidence showed that when he was at work in defendant's shed, and kneeling to look for marks on a bale of cotton, its weight depressed the ends of loose boards in the floor, causing a bale standing at their other end to fall on and injure him that the floor had been in bad repair for several years. But he denied that he knew of the defects in the floor, and on his testimony, his ignorance of its condition was possible and reasonable. Held, that he had the right to submit to the jury the issue whether he was negligent or not.

Frank Norman, the plaintiff in error and the plaintiff below, was employed by the Wabash Railroad Company, the defendant, in its freight sheds in Detroit. The freight sheds were divided into two parts by railway tracks. The north part was called the 'city side' and the south part was called the 'dock side." Norman's duties consisted of examining the tags or marks upon each package of merchandise and calling out the same to the checker, who made a record of them. This was done at the time when the packages were moved. The floor of the north side of the shed had been in bad condition for several years, the boards were loose and the floor, under pressure, sagged in the middle. The stringers under the boards were defective, and the foundations of the floor were generally out of repair. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that Norman worked all the time on the dock or south side of the freight sheds, and that he was sent over to the city or north side at rare intervals only that he did not know that the floor of the north side was in bad condition; that at 9 o'clock at night he went over to that side with a foreman and a truck to move bales of cotton which were standing against the wall; that, after having removed all but two of the bales, he and the truckman approached one of the two remaining bales, and pulled it down on to the truck; that Norman could not find the tag or mark on the upper part of the bale, and, in the dimly lighted building, stooped to find it below; that the foreman called to the truckman to pull the bale toward the middle of the shed in order that Norman might get more light; that the truckman did pull the bale several feet away from the bale toward the middle of the shed in order that Norman might get more light; that the truckman did pull the bale several feet away from the bale which remained standing; that Norman kneeled to examine the lower part of the bale on the truck when the remaining bale toppled and fell upon Norman's foot, inflicting a severe injury. The evidence tended to show that the weight of the loaded truck and the truckman on one end of the loose floor boards had depressed them, and thus lifted the bale at the other end of the boards, toppling it over. It was in evidence that the freight agent of the company and the division superintendent had visited the freight house, and had examined the condition of the floor. The foreman, called by the defendant, testified that the bale which ultimately fell upon Norman's foot had fallen before, and had been replaced by Norman, and that he then deliberately placed himself so near the bale that when it fell again it necessarily injured him. He also stated that Norman was sent into the north side of the freight sheds for an hour or two every day, and that he must have been there several hundred times. There was no evidence to show what the duties of the freight agent or of the division superintendent were, or that they were charged with the repair and preservation of...