Ryan v. Bagaley

• Decision Date: 27 February 1883
• Citation: 50 Mich. 179,15 N.W. 72
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: RYAN v. BAGALEY and another.

15 N.W. 72

50 Mich. 179

RYAN v. BAGALEY and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 27, 1883

Where an injury is caused to a workman in a mine by reason of the negligence of one who is not in any true sense a mere foreman or department leader or subchief in a given sphere of mining operations, but whose agency covers the entire mine and the entire control of the work, such negligence is not the negligence of a fellow-servant, but is to be considered as the negligence of the owner of the mine, and he will be liable therefor whether such agent was appointed directly by him or by his general agent.

Error to Marquette.

G.W Hayden, for plaintiff.

W.P Healy, for defendants and appellants.

GRAVES C.J.

The defendant is proprietor of the Palmer Iron Mine, and Daniel Ryan, the decedent, while working as a laborer in the mine was suddenly killed by the fall of certain water-pipe which were being hoisted from below. The plaintiff claimed that the casualty was owing to negligence for which the defendant was liable and she hence brought this action and was allowed to recover. That there was negligence as alleged is not disputed; and neither is it disputed that it personally rested on one Whitesides, who was in the performance of his customary duties as the fellow-servant of Ryan, and hence that the defendant was not answerable to one for the negligence of the other. It is expedient to refer to a few facts. As a part of the general business a store was carried on. The defendant lived in Pittsburgh and the conduct of affairs was confided to local agents, and the agent first in station was Kirkpatrick. But neither he nor the defendant was competent to work the mine. They were untaught. Therefore all matters in regard to working the mine were required to be left to some one else and they were committed absolutely to Whitesides the mining captain. Kirkpatrick took care of the store and had charge of the financial part of the business. He also kept the books. He rarely went to the mine and had no control over its peculiar operations. He in fact appointed Whitesides but did not assume to direct or control him.

The defendant made frequent visits and was accustomed to consult with Whitesides and listen to his plans and arrangements about the conduct of the mine, and in case the defendant knew anything on the subject, which rarely happened, he would tender advice.

The plaintiff took the position that according to the facts which were not disputed the authority and control delegated to Whitesides over the mining and the mines were such that the latter was not to be regarded as a mere fellow-servant of Ryan, but for the purpose of seeing who was responsible he was to be deemed as standing in the defendant's shoes and as affecting the latter with whatever liability there was. Upon this point the circuit judge instructed the jury as follows: "Now what was the position...