Nutt v. Southern P. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1894 |
| Citation | 35 P. 653,25 Or. 291 |
| Parties | NUTT v. SOUTHERN PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Josephine county; H.K. Hanna, Judge.
Action by Alonzo Nutt against the Southern Pacific Railway Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed.
E.C. Bronaugh and W.D. Fenton, for appellant.
R.G Smith, for respondent.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of the defendant while unloading some heavy tiling from a flat car. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment which followed, this appeal is prosecuted. The complaint charges, inter alia, that "the defendant negligently failed to provide the plaintiff with suitable tools or appliances for carrying on such labor," etc and that, by reason thereof, he was seriously injured. The evidence tends to show that, at the time the plaintiff was injured, he was engaged as a section hand in unloading some heavy pieces of tiling, weighing from 1,500 to 1,800 pounds each, from a flat car; that the agent of the defendant unloaded such tiling by means of a small rope, skids, and other appliances; that a tile was let off the car upon the skids by a rope fastened under the car, brought up and around the tiling, and back to a stake at the side of the car, around which it was passed, and "snubbed off" in lowering the tile to the ground; that the plaintiff was engaged in the work of snubbing off such rope and that, while so engaged, the stake gave way, and struck him with great force, inflicting the injury complained of. Upon this state of facts, the court charged the jury generally that "it is the master's duty to furnish safe and suitable appliances for his employes, for their safety and protection," etc., and, in applying the law as thus stated, proceeded to say, in substance, that if the jury found that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a section laborer, and, at the time specified, was engaged in assisting to unload a car of heavy tiling, and if they found such tiles "were ponderous and heavy objects incapable of being handled without the aid of tools and appliances, then, in that case, you are instructed that it was the duty of the defendant to furnish said laborers with suitable and safe appliances and tools to perform said labor, and that it could not delegate that duty to any person, whether a vice principal or common servant, so as to exonerate the defendant from liability from any defect in the tools or appliances furnished, or for any failure to furnish safe tools and appliances for use in said work." It thus appears that the trial court regarded and treated the duty of the defendant to furnish its employes with safe and suitable tools for the work at which they were engaged as absolute, and that it could not escape liability for any defect in them, whereby an injury resulted, although the company may have exercised due care and prudence in providing tools and appliances reasonably safe for use in such work. The defendant is not a guarantor that the tools, implements, or other appliances which it provides for the use of its employes are absolutely safe, or free from all defects. Neither individuals nor corporations are bound to insure the absolute safety of the instrumentalities which they furnish their employes for use in their employment. Their duty is discharged when they exercise reasonable care and diligence in providing their employes with reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work. While such duty is positive, it does not go to the extent of guarantying the safety of such implements, but its proper discharge requires the observance of such care as will not expose the employes to hazards and dangers which might be guarded against by proper diligence. As the employer assumes the duty of exercising due care and diligence to provide the employes with reasonably safe tools and machinery for use in his employment, so the employe, when the employer discharges such duty, assumes the risks and hazards incident to his service in the use of such tools and machinery. The general principles of the law in regard to the employer's liability for an injury to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Yemm
...Pac. Co. v. Hammerlund, 70 Kan. 888, 79 Pac. 152;Maynard v. Oregon, etc., Co., 46 Or. 15, 78 Pac. 983, 68 L. R. A. 477;Nutt v. Southern, etc., Co., 25 Or. 291, 35 Pac. 653; St. Louis Co. v. Adams, 74 Ark. 326, 85 S. W. 768, 86 S. W. 287, 109 Am. St. Rep. 85; International Co. v. Goswick, 98......
-
Yundt v. D & D Bowl, Inc.
...v. May et al., 121 Or. 418, 225 P. 464 (1927); Marks v. Columbia County Lumber Co., 77 Or. 22, 149 P. 1041 (1915); Nutt v. Southern Pacific Co., 25 Or. 291, 35 P. 653 (1894). Generally, when appellate courts speak of the discretion of a trial judge, they refer to an exclusive power of free ......
-
Forquer v. Slater Brick Co.
... ... Liability, etc., p. 145; Gilbert v. Guild, 144 Mass ... 601, 12 N.E. 368; Schroeder v. Car Co., 56 Mich ... 132, 22 N.W. 220; Nutt v. So. Railway Co., 25 Or ... 291, 35 P. 653; W. & G. Railroad Co. v. McDade, 135 ... U.S. 554, 10 S.Ct. 1044, 34 L.Ed. 235; Sappenfield v ... ...
-
Lamb v. Page
...either before or after the second accident. In Eby v. Foremost Insurance Co., 141 Mont. 62, 374 P.2d 857, we quoted from Nutt v. Southern Pac. Ry., 25 Or. 291, 35 P. 653 as follows: "The necessity for opinion evidence only exists where the facts in controversy are incapable of being detaile......