Parkhurst v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 18 January 1883
• Citation: 50 Mich. 70,15 N.W. 107
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PARKHURST v. JOHNSON.

15 N.W. 107

50 Mich. 70

PARKHURST v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 18, 1883

The facts in this case held to show negligence on the part of an employer in taking an inexperienced man into a dangerous place without apprising him of the risks of the employment and without warning that him danger was to be anticipated.

COOLEY, J.

The plaintiff, as administrator of her deceased husband Daniel Parkhurst, brings suit against Johnson for causing the death of her husband by negligence. She recovered judgment in the circuit court, and the principal question on this record is whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of defendant to go to the jury.

The principal facts in the case are these:

Johnson in the fall of 1880, was proprietor of a limekiln in East Saginaw, which he was then operating. It was customary when the stone at the base of the kiln was sufficiently burned to take it out. When this was done the insufficiently-burned stone above did not fall into the cleared space but was retained by lateral pressure. To force it down men either stood on the curb at the top of the kiln and pounded upon it with heavy iron bars, or they got upon the stone with their implements and worked upon it until it fell. The fall would be in proportion to the quantity which had been taken out below, and might be one foot or four or even more. As the stone below would be hot, it would be necessary that the men standing upon the stone when it fell should immediately step off. As the falling would begin from the under side, they commonly had sufficient warning in the sound, and could easily step upon the curbing in time to escape danger.

Daniel Parkhurst was a common laborer, and had seen very little of lime-burning. It was not shown that he had any experience which would make him acquainted with its dangers. Johnson hired him, and took him upon the stone with himself and an experienced hand to assist in pounding the stone down. Two draws had been taken out from beneath. This was an unusual quantity, and the probability that the fall would be considerable was increased in proportion. It does not appear that Johnson apprised Parkhurst of this fact, or that he gave him any warning whatever. In going upon the stone Johnson had the danger in mind, and looked to see where he would step off when the fall came, but it does not appear that Parkhurst was anticipating danger or preparing for it. The three...