Riedel v. Moran, Fitzsimons & Co.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1894 |
| Citation | 103 Mich. 262,61 N.W. 509 |
| Parties | RIEDEL v. MORAN, FITZSIMONS & CO., LIMITED. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.
Action by Peter Riedel against Moran, Fitzsimons & Co., Limited, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of a barrel of sugar striking plaintiff as he was walking past defendant's place of business. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Lemuel H. Foster (Charles Flowers, of counsel), for appellant.
John G Hawley, for appellee.
On May 26, 1892, plaintiff was passing defendant's place of business on Woodward avenue, city of Detroit, when he was struck by a barrel of sugar, which was suddenly and without warning or notice rolled out of the defendant's store upon the sidewalk in front. Plaintiff was seriously injured and brings this action for damages thus sustained. Defendant's warehouse has two doors opening on Woodward avenue. Plaintiff testifies that, as he passed the lower door, he saw men handling boxes, and, after he got past them, the sidewalk was clear; but, just as he was opposite the other door, he was struck with this barrel. Witness saw Mr. Moran, the president of the defendant company, standing in the door, and he gave no warning until just as the barrel struck plaintiff, when he called out, "Where are your eyes?" The barrel was rolled out by one George Lutz, who was a truckman in the employ of the Sheddon Cartage Company which company was under contract with the defendant company to furnish it trucks and teams and men to do all its cartage at a certain price per year. There was no stipulation in the contract for any particular men. The defendant did not hire the men, and had no power to discharge them. If the work was not satisfactorily done, defendant looked to the Sheddon Cartage Company under its contract. On the trial, after the testimony was in, the court directed a verdict for the defendant.
Plaintiff's contention in the court below was, and the same claim is made here, that the testimony showed that defendant gave direction to the men how to handle the freight going out of the store for shipment, and consequently the men were under the immediate charge and control of the defendant, and for any acts of negligence of the men the defendant became liable. The testimony does not support plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial