Sadowski v. Michigan Car Co.
| Decision Date | 24 December 1890 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SADOWSKI v. MICHIGAN CAR CO. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; GEORGE S. HOSMER, Judge.
Wm. H. Wells, for appellant.
F W. A. Kurth and James H. Pound, for appellee.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff July 2, 1887, while in the employment of the defendant. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and defendant brings error. I take the following statement of facts substantially from appellant's brief: Defendant was engaged in the manufacture of cars in the city of Detroit and employed about 2,200 men. One part of its premises was known as the "lumber-yard." James McGregor was the general superintendent. His son, James C. McGregor, was foreman of the lumber-yard. Plaintiff had worked for the defendant about five years as a common laborer. His work was in the lumber-yard. At the time of the injury, he was engaged with his mate in conveying pine strips from the pile of lumber in the yard to the planing-mill. Tramways extended through the yard from place to place as shown by the map appended. Upon these tracks ran small platform cars, or trucks, about four feet by six feet, called "larries," which were loaded with the material and pushed by the men to the place where the material was needed. There were small turn-tables at the crossings and intersections. The plaintiff had been at work with a larrie for over a year, and was familiar with the tracks. The men were accustomed to use whichever track they could use to the best advantage. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff with his mate was pushing a heavy load of strips. It was taller than Sadowski, so that he could not look over it. The pile from which the larrie was loaded was near track No. 4 on the map. From the piles at the north end of the yard, two main tracks ran to the planing-shop at the south end of the yard, one of the tracks being on the east, and the other on the west, side of the kiln and planing-shop. These main tracks are numbered 5 and 1 on the map. Ordinarily, the course would have been for plaintiff to push the larrie along track, 4, to turn-table, 6; thence east along track, 6, to turn-table, C; thence south along track, 1, to the planing-shop. When plaintiff had reached the point indicated on the map by letter, L, he observed a team with a load of planks at the point, K, upon the track. This prevented their reaching the mill by track, 1, and, without directions from any one, they pushed the car in the opposite direction to the turn-table, G; thence along main track, 5 to turn-table, H, intending to go thence by the cross-track E, to the main track, 1, and thence to the planing-shop.
At the turn-table, H, the gang-boss met them, and told them to hurry up. He helped them turn the car around, and helped to shove it. The gang-boss took hold with plaintiff and his mate and helped push the larrie. They pushed it over the turn-table, H. and along the cross-track towards the turn-table, D, and, when some 18 or 20 feet from the turntable, H, they came to a ditch which had been dug the night before under the track, into which the plaintiff fell. The two men who were with him saw the ditch, and stepped over it. They were on the outside at the corners of the car while plaintiff was in the center. The plaintiff was pushing with his breast and shoulders, and exerting all his strength. The ditch was about four feet deep, and about three or four feet wide at the top. It was intended for a water-pipe for a pen-stock. It was dug there under the general superintendent's directions. James C. McGregor, the yard foreman, received orders from the superintendent to put in the water-pipe. He went to Mertisfield, the gang-boss; told him to put in some men, and start them to digging. They completed the ditch the night before the accident, and left it uncovered. The accident occurred about half past 8 in the morning. The job of putting in the water-pipe, involving the digging of similar ditches, had been going on about a week. The space between the turn-table and the ditch was unobstructed to the view; the tracks were laid upon the level ground. Plaintiff knew all the tracks, had used most of them, and was accustomed to use whichever could be used to the best advantage. The dirt from the ditch was piled upon the side. Plaintiff saw the dirt, but could not say on which side it was. He testified that he had no warning to look out for the ditch, and that he did not know that the ditch was there; and from the way in which he was pushing he could not see the ditch until he fell into it. The errors relied on by defendant for a reversal of the judgment are two: First, that the court erred in charging the jury that it was the duty of the master to furnish his employes with a suitable and safe place in which they may perform their work; second, his refusal to charge the jury that the verdict must be for the defendant.
(Image Omitted)
It is claimed that the charge of the court complained of amounted to an instruction that the defendant was an insurer of the safety of its premises; whereas it is contended that the rule is one of reasonable care simply, and that an employer is not responsible for any neglect to provide his servant with a safe place in which to work, unless it appear that such neglect is due to a want of reasonable care on the part of the master. Conceding the rule to be as contended for by counsel for defendant, I do not find the charge of the court, taken as a whole, open to the criticism he makes. It is true the charge starts out with this language: "It is the duty of a master to furnish his employes with a suitable and a safe place in which they may perform their work; and he cannot delegate this responsibility so as to make the person who is intrusted with this duty a co-employe." This language is quoted almost exactly from that of Mr. Justice MORSE in Van Dusen v. Letellier, 78 Mich. 502, 44 N.W. 572; but neither Mr. Justice MORSE nor the learned circuit judge intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial