Reilly v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 27 February 1894
• Docket Number: 66.
• Citation: Reilly v. Campbell, 59 F. 990 (2nd Cir. 1894)
• Parties: REILLY v. CAMPBELL et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

59 F. 990

REILLY v. CAMPBELL et al.

No. 66.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 27, 1894

L. E Chittenden and John C. Robinson, for plaintiff in error.

Hamilton Wallis, for defendants in error.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

The action was for personal injuries received by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendants. It appeared upon the trial that the plaintiff, while working as a laborer for the defendants, who were iron molders, was severely injured by reason of the breaking of the handle of a ladle containing molten iron which, in the course of his duties, he was assisting to carry from one part of the defendants' premises to another. The only evidence as to the circumstances of the accident was that, while the plaintiff and two other men were carrying the ladle in the customary way, one of the handles suddenly broke, and the molten metal was spilled upon the plaintiff. No evidence was offered in respect to the condition of the ladle at the time of, or previous to, the accident, except proof that the ladle was made of sheet iron, lined with fire clay, had handles made of wrought iron fastened to a wrought iron band which passed around it, and had been in use 15 years. No evidence was offered for the purpose of showing that the appliance was defective or unsafe. The case for the plaintiff was rested upon the theory that negligence was to be presumed against the defendants from the circumstances of the accident. The trial judge ruled that there was no evidence of negligence and accordingly directed a verdict for the defendants.

If an employer is liable to an employe, hurt in the course of his duties, whenever it appears that the injury was caused by a defective appliance provided by the employer for the duty the ruling at the trial was erroneous. The breaking of the ladle while it was being used in the customary way, and for the purpose for which it was provided, could only be accounted for upon the inference that it was infirm. Having been used for many years in the same way, presumably it was originally sufficient. Whether it had become impaired by age and wear and tear, or by some other cause, was, upon the evidence, merely matter of conjecture, and is an immaterial consideration if the only question were whether it was defective at the time. But an employer does not undertake as an insurer with his...