Piette v. Bavarian Brewing Co.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1892 |
| Citation | 91 Mich. 605,52 N.W. 152 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PIETTE v. BAVARIAN BREWING CO. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.
Action by M. Piette against the Bavarian Brewing Company for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Edwin F. Conely and Orla B Taylor, (James H. Pound, of counsel,) for appellant.
W F. Atkinson, for appellee.
In September, 1885, Messrs. Michenfelder and Ratigan, who were then carrying on business as brewers, made a contract with one Jubillo to cut and haul their ice, and fill their ice house. In December, 1885, and before the work had been commenced under said contract, Messrs. Michenfelder and Ratigan, with others, organized the defendant company, and the business was afterwards carried on in the name of the Bavarian Brewing Company. Michenfelder was its president, and Ratigan its secretary. The ice was hoisted into the ice houses by means of a stationary hoisting apparatus, owned by the company, and it was a part of Jubillo's work, under his contract, to hoist the ice by means of this apparatus and pack it away in the ice house. This apparatus was operated by horse power. The following cut will aid in its explanation:
(Image Omitted)
B and B represent the buckets. A wire cable extended from the top of one bucket to the top of the other, and a manilla rope extended from the bottom of one bucket to the bottom of the other. The pulley at the left was attached by a rope to a stake, so that while in operation the cable and rope were drawn taut. The horse was attached at the point, C, and pulled either way, according to which bucket it was desired to hoist. The buckets dropped into wells which were let into the platform on either side, so that the ice might be loaded without lifting. The rope ran through a hole in the bottom of each well, and it became necessary to shovel out from these wells the ice clippings as they accumulated from time to time. This could only be done while the bucket was up. Plaintiff was in Jubillo's employ, and, while engaged in cleaning one of these wells, the cable parted, and the bucket fell, injuring him severely. Plaintiff sued claiming that the apparatus furnished by defendant was defective, and the defendant had judgment. It was insisted by defendant upon the trial (1) that the immediate cause of the accident was the negligence of a fellow servant; and (2) that defendant was negligent in getting into the well to clean it out. There was a succession of doors upon the outside of the ice house, and, as it was filled up, the lower door was closed, and the next was opened. In order to carry the buckets higher, it became necessary to shorten the wire cable between the buckets. This was done by means of a wrench or crank at the point, R. While plaintiff claimed that a number of strands of the wire cable were actually eaten off by the rust, and that the remaining strands were weakened and rotten from the same cause, and that the cable would not have parted except for that reason, the defendant claimed that, while plaintiff was engaged in cleaningout the well, two of Jubillo's employes, who were plaintiff's fellow servants, were operating the crank at the point, R, and had not taken the precaution to length or loosen the rope, and that, in consequence of the unusual strain upon the cable, it parted.
The testimony was conflicting upon this point, but there was no error in the court's instruction to the jury that "if the injury was caused by the attempt of the fellow servant to shorten the wire rope without lengthening the manilla rope, then the plaintiff cannot recover." The testimony tended to show that, unless the proper slack was given to the rope,...
To continue reading
Request your trial