Reffke v. Patten Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1908 |
| Parties | REFFKE v. PATTEN PAPER CO., LIMITED. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Outagamie County; John Goodland, Judge.
Action by August Reffke, as administrator of the estate of Leo Reffke, deceased, against the Patten Paper Company, Limited. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
An action to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff's intestate, which are alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of paper at Appleton. Wis. Leo Reffke, plaintiff's intestate, was employed as a laborer in defendant's paper mill, and was engaged as a helper to operate a paper machine. It is alleged that Leo Reffke was 21 years old at the time of accident, namely, November 21, 1906; that he was of limited experience in the work as a helper; that a part of his duties as such helper consisted in placing drier felt on a revolving pulley, and in removing such drier felt while the pulley and belt were in motion, and it is alleged that he was injured while in the performance of the duty. It is alleged that defendant was negligent in not furnishing the deceased a safe machine, a safe place to work, and that the defendant negligently exposed him to unguarded and unfenced belting, gearing, shafting, and flywheels, making them dangerous, and that such negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the decedent's injuries and death. The plaintiff sues to recover the damages caused by such injuries and death. The deceased was unmarried and had no children, but left his father, the plaintiff, and Hermina Reffke, his mother, surviving him. Plaintiff was duly appointed administrator of decedent's estate. The defendant admits that it is engaged in the paper manufacturing business as alleged, that Leo Reffke was in its employ, and was on the day of the accident engaged as a machine helper; denies that it was negligent in any of the respects charged by the plaintiff; alleges that it furnished decedent safe and suitable machines at which to work, a safe place in which to perform his work, and that it properly guarded and fenced all dangerous belting, shafting, gearing, and pulleys; and denies that decedent was exposed to any dangerous, unguarded, and unfenced machinery and appliance as alleged by plaintiff. The case was tried to a jury, which rendered a special verdict. The second question of the special verdict is: “At the time and place in question, did the defendant use ordinary care and prudence to prevent injury to the plaintiff's intestate while engaged in performing his duties as employé?” The jury answered this question in the negative. By questions 3 and 4 the jury found that “the defective and unsafe condition of the machinery and appliances alleged to have existed at the time and place in question [was] the proximate cause of the injuries,” and that such condition had existed a sufficient length of time for the defendant in the exercise of ordinary care to have discovered and repaired it. They also found that the deceased was not guilty of any want of ordinary care which contributed to produce his injuries, and assessed the damages plaintiff sustained as a result of Leo Reffke's death. Judgment was awarded against the defendant for the amount of damages assessed by the jury and the costs of the action. From this judgment, defendant appeals.Doe & Ballhorn, for appellant.
Albert H. Krugmeier, A. M. Spencer, and Frederick V. Heinemann, for respondent.
SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The appellant urges numerous errors. They need not all be considered in view of our conclusion that the special verdict does not cover the material issues with sufficient certainty to show unequivocally how the jury resolved the issues litigated.
The complaint charges that the defendant negligently furnished the deceased an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willette v. Rhinelander Paper Co.
...unchanged by the new section. Klotz v. Power & Mining Co., 136 Wis. 107, 116 N. W. 770, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 904;Reffke v. Patten Paper Co., 136 Wis. 535, 117 N. W. 1004;Lind v. Uniform S. & P. Co., 140 Wis. 183, 120 N. W. 839;Monaghan v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 140 Wis. 457, 122 N. W. 1066. ......
-
Borgstede v. Waldbauer
... ... 224; Houston Railroad v ... Brown, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 595; Refke v. Paper ... Co., 136 Wis. 535; Ulmer v. Farnham, 28 S.W.2d ... 116. (3) The court erred in refusing ... ...
-
W. v. Bayfield Mill Co.
...to employés in the discharge of their duty and unguarded. This is also the necessary result of the decisions in Reffke v. P. P. Co., 136 Wis. 535, 117 N. W. 1004,Hoffman v. Rib Lake, etc., Co., 136 Wis. 388, 117 N. W. 789, and Miller v. Kimberly-Clark Co., 137 Wis. 138, 118 N. W. 536, all c......
-
Lehman v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
...66 N. W. 791;Holt v. Railroad Co., 94 Wis. 596, 69 N. W. 352;Kucera v. Merrill L. Co., 91 Wis. 637, 65 N. W. 374;Raffke v. Patten Paper Co., 136 Wis. 535, 117 N. W. 1004;Nass v. Schulz, 105 Wis. 146, 81 N. W. 133;Dean v. Railway Co., 43 Wis. 305;Goltz v. Railway Co., 76 Wis. 136, 44 N. W. 7......