Rawley v. Colliau

• Decision Date: 22 January 1892
• Citation: 51 N.W. 350,90 Mich. 31
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: RAWLEY v. COLLIAU et al.

51 N.W. 350

90 Mich. 31

RAWLEY v. COLLIAU et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 22, 1892

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.

Action by James Rawley against Victor Colliau and Frank Colliau, for personal injuries. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Seth E. Engle, for appellant.

James C. Smith, Jr., (Chas. M Swift and F. T. Sibley, of counsel,) for appellees.

MORSE C.J.

The plaintiff is a blacksmith, 46 years of age, and had worked 20 years or more at his trade. He was in the employ of the defendants but a short time, but was familiar with the work in which he was employed at the time he was injured, and for which injury he brings this suit. At the time he was hurt he was holding a heavy iron bar against a section of boiler-iron, while another employe was holding a steel punch against the other side, and a third employe was striking the punch with a sledge-hammer, for the purpose of making holes through said plate or section of boiler-iron. A piece of steel flew off from the face or edge of the sledge-hammer and struck plaintiff in the eye, injuring and destroying the sight. It is alleged in the declaration that it was the duty of defendants to exercise care and diligence in providing tools and implements, and to furnish safe tools and implements for carrying on their business without damage to their employes, and that they did not do so, but carelessly and negligently provided and furnished a sledge-hammer which was dangerous and unfit to be used; and especially that it was not properly tempered, and was scaled or splintered and cracked about its face and edges, so that, when it was used in striking heavy blows, it was liable to break and chip off, causing the pieces to fly with great force to the great danger of wounding and injuring the plaintiff; that he himself was not in the habit of using this sledge-hammer and was not aware of its condition, nor of the danger attending its use. After hearing the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, the court below directed a verdict for the defendants, and we think the court was right in such instruction. There were several sledge-hammers in use in the shop where plaintiff was employed, and none of the rest of them were shown to be in an improper condition for use. The hammer which caused the injury had been in use for a long time, and its condition had been brought about by such use. There is some doubt whether the hammer, by an inspection of the naked...