Pahlan v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1899 |
| Citation | 122 Mich. 232,81 N.W. 103 |
| Parties | PAHLAN v. DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Ionia county; Frank D. M. Davis, Judge.
Action for injuries by Edward Pahlan against the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error. Reversed. and defendant brings error. Reversed.
E. W. Meddaugh (Geer & Williams, of counsel), for appellant.
John Nichol and James Curry, Jr. (Allen B. Morse, of counsel), for appellee.
At Ovid station the defendant's railroad consists of three tracks, there being two sidings north of the main track. Upon the north side of the northernmost track there was a coal bin, which was erected, some years before the occurrence giving rise to this action, by the Ovid Buggy Company, to receive coal shipped over the defendant's road. At the time of the accident the side of the bin next the track overhung 8 inches, at a height of 6 feet according to the testimony of one of the plaintiff's witnesses, who said that he measured it. He testified that the distance between the top of the posts and a coal car was about 8 inches, and between the post and the bottom of the car about 18 inches, and at the west end was about 1 inch nearer the rail than at the other end. He also testified that he measured six way cars, four of which were of the width of the coal car, and two were about 4 inches wider. He also testified that the bin was not too near the track for convenience in unloading coal. It was erected and maintained by the buggy company upon lands of the defendant, by its consent; and there was a dispute as to the cause of the overhang,--one side alleging that it was built so, and the other, that it had spread. The plaintiff had been in defendant's employ as a section hand for about a year and a half, and had worked upon the gravel train for about a week, prior to the accident. He had been through Ovid upon the train with two loads of gravel, but was otherwise unacquainted with the yard. Upon the day in question a load of gravel had been taken east of Ovid, and after it was unloaded the train returned to Ovid, where it was to remain for the night. On reaching Ovid the gravel train entered upon the middle track (i. e. the main siding), and the way car was cut off; and, with a view to getting it ahead of the engine orders were given to push it upon the north siding, and the plaintiff, with others, did so. This was after dark, and, as plaintiff was walking beside and pushing the car by the hand rail at the front platform, he claims to have struck his shoulder against the coal bin and suffered an injury. The train was in charge of a conductor named Judd, and the workmen were at the time under a foreman named Grimes; the assistant road master having left the train at another station. Some witnesses say the order was given by Grimes; and others, that Judd gave it. There was another man in front of the plaintiff, pushing the car, but his identity was not ascertained. Nothing indicates that he was injured. The negligence complained of was the maintenance of the coal bin so close to the track, in violation of defendant's duty to furnish a safe place for plaintiff to work. It was also urged that the work was performed under the direction of Grimes, who was a superior officer, and that in giving the order he represented the master.
It is definitely settled in this state that the master owes to the employ� the duty of furnishing a reasonably safe place to work, and that this rule applies to railroads as well as other places. The authorities are collected in the cases of Balhoff v. Railroad Co., 106 Mich. 613, 65 N.W. 592 and Anderson v. Railroad Co., 107 Mich. 595, 65 N.W. 585. It is urged that a railroad company has a right to construct its road and structures after plans of its own, and not subject to the approval of juries, who cannot be allowed to determine such questions. This is equivalent to saying that the doctrine that a master must furnish a reasonably safe place for his employ� to work does not apply to railroads. We appreciate the practical consequences of leaving such a question to a jury, and the proneness of such tribunals to accept the fact of an accident as sufficient evidence of fault upon the part of the master. We should hardly like to admit that lawyers and juries know more about proper railroad building than those experienced therein. But, on the other hand, we cannot say that railroads are free from defects, or the owners and their employ�s from negligence; nor is there authority or reason for exempting them from the general law pertaining to master and servant. Many of the cases cited were railroad cases, and we repeat that the question is settled for Michigan; and, wherever the fact is fairly in dispute, we see no way for railroads to avoid the submission of the question to a jury. There are cases, however, when no dispute arises; e. g. when the undisputed evidence shows that the place furnished by the master conforms to the general condition upon other roads, or where the defect is a known or obvious one to the employ�, or one of which he is bound to take notice. In the former the court may say, as a matter of law, that there is no negligence; in the latter, as well as the former, that the employ� has assumed the risk obviously incident to the conditions, whether defective or not. It is a well-known fact, of which we may take judicial notice, that it is usual for sidings to be so constructed as to permit cars to stand close to buildings, thereby facilitating the loading and unloading, and reducing the cost and danger of the operation. This is uniformly true of elevators and coal bins, and every...
To continue reading
Request your trial