Smale v. Wrought Washer Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1915 |
| Parties | SMALE v. WROUGHT WASHER MFG. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; F. C. Eschweiler, Judge.
Action by William H. Smale against the Wrought Washer Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Action for personal injuries. The plaintiff in September, 1913, was an employé of the Andrae Electrical Company, and as such employé was sent to the shop of the defendant corporation on the morning of the 8th of said month to install some new telephones and telephone wires in the shop to take the place of certain apparatus of the same nature which had recently been removed. The shop is a long building extending from east to west and consists of one large room open to the roof, on the floor of which the operations of the factory are carried on. For the purpose of moving materials on the floor of the shop, a large traveling electric crane is maintained, the bridge of which (31 feet above the floor) spans the shop from north to south, and is supported at each end by trucks and wheels running on steel railway tracks which are attached to the north and south walls of the building and run the entire length of the shop. There is a steel ledge or shelf on which these tracks rest wide enough for a man to stand on and work upon, but not wide enough to afford room for a man to stand if the crane moves past him. The cage in which the craneman is stationed to operate the crane hangs just below the bridge near the north wall, and the craneman faces southeast as he handles the levers. From his position he can look up and see the tracks on which the bridge runs and see a man working on the ledge if the man be 10 or 12 feet distant from the bridge. Ordinarily, however, he is not expected or required to watch the track as it is not expected that anybody will be on the ledge.
When Smale came to the shop on the morning in question, he was directed to the general foreman of the shop, one Gilder, who showed him where the work was to be done and turned him over to the house electrician, Junn, with whom the plaintiff discussed the manner of doing the work and the place where the cables and wires might conveniently be strung. They decided that it would be best to run the main wire along the north side of the building on the steel ledge or shelf which supports the track, drawing it up tight to the wall behind the track with insulating tape. As this plan would make it necessary for the plaintiff to work upon the track, it was decided that Mr. Junn should notify the craneman that there was going to be a man working on the track and that he must look out for him. After giving the craneman this notification, Junn returned to the plaintiff and told him that it was all right now and he could go ahead. The plaintiff worked on the ledge during most of the morning and was notified by the craneman when it was necessary to move the crane so as to interfere with the plaintiff's work, on which occasions the plaintiff got out of the way until the crane moved back again. The plaintiff's work continued during the afternoon, but did not call him up on the track. On the following day, however, he was obliged again to go up on the track. While he was at work, the crane ran him down, crushing him between the trucks and the wall and inflicting very serious and permanent injuries.
The jury returned a special verdict finding that: (1) There was want of ordinary care on the part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Northland Equip. Co.
...one person may have at law against a third person for a tort which such third person commits against him.” Smale v. Wrought Washer Mfg. Co., 160 Wis. 331, 334, 151 N.W. 803 (1915) (emphasis supplied); see also Severin v. Luchinske, 271 Wis. 378, 383, 73 N.W.2d 477 (1955) (“That remedy [a th......
-
State for Benefit of Workmen's Compensation Fund v. E. W. Wylie Co., 7288
...has caused the death or injury.' See also Bristol Telephone Company v. Weaver, 146 Tenn. 511, 243 S.W. 299. In Smale v. Wrought Washer Mfg. Co., 160 Wis. 331, 151 N.W. 803, 804, the plaintiff, an employee of the Andrae Company, was sent to the shop of the Washer Company to do some work, and......
-
McKenzie v. Missouri Stables, Inc.
...third person to escape liability because section 11 regulates only the relations between employer and employee. Smale v. Wrought Washer Mfg. Co., 160 Wisc. 331, 151 N.W. 803; Southern Surety Co. v. Chicago P.M. & O.R. Co., 187 Iowa, 357, 174 N.W. 329; Lester v. Otis Elevator Co., 169 App. D......
-
McKenzie v. Missouri Stables
... ... Bank Line, 35 F.2d 136 (C. C. A ... 4th); Whalen v. Athol Mfg. Co., 136 N.E. 600 ... Judson, ... Green, Henry & ... only the relations between employer and employee. Smale ... v. Wrought Washer Mfg. Co., 160 Wisc. 331, 151 N.W. 803; ... ...