Platteter v. Paulson-Ellingson Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1912
• Citation: 149 Wis. 186,135 N.W. 535
• Parties: PLATTETER v. PAULSON-ELLINGSON LUMBER CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

149 Wis. 186

135 N.W. 535

PLATTETER

v.PAULSON-ELLINGSON LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rusk County; James Wickham, Judge.

Action by Edward Platteter against the Paulson-Ellingson Lumber Company. From an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Thomas & Carow, for appellant.

W. H. Frawley and T. F. Frawley, for respondent.

SIEBECKER, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, while engaged with other employés of the defendant in logging operations, was ordered to pile logs on skidways, and that while using skids furnished by the defendant one of the skids broke, allowing the log which was being raised to fall upon plaintiff and break his leg.

[1] Negligence is alleged in the complaint as follows: “That the failure of the said defendant to furnish the said plaintiff reasonably safe tools, implements, appliances, and instrumentalities, and the negligence of said defendant in ordering and requiring the said plaintiff to work by and with the tools, implements, instrumentalities, and appliances so furnished, was negligence for the reason that the skids so furnished by the said defendant to said plaintiff were insufficient in size, old, rotten, brittle, and likely to break, and that the same could not be safely used for the work so required of the said plaintiff by the said defendant. That the said defendant in failing to test, examine, and inspect the tools, implements, instrumentalities, and appliances was negligent for the reason that the said tools, implements, instrumentalities, and appliances demanded careful, close, and constant examination and inspection to determine the sufficiency and safety of said appliances so used by the said defendant in its said logging operations.”

The appellant contends that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because it appears upon the face thereof that the defendant was not negligent in the respects alleged. The allegations must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Considering them from this viewpoint, it is obvious that the facts stated charge the defendant with furnishing skids that were insufficient in size and strength for the use for which they were intended, and that this rendered them unsafe and dangerous to the plaintiff in the course of his employment. This...