Storrie v. Grand Trunk Elevator Co.

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOOKER, C.J.
• Citation: Storrie v. Grand Trunk Elevator Co., 134 Mich. 297, 96 N.W. 569 (Mich. 1903)
• Decision Date: 15 September 1903
• Parties: STORRIE v. GRAND TRUNK ELEVATOR CO.

96 N.W. 569

134 Mich. 297

STORRIE v. GRAND TRUNK ELEVATOR CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 15, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Frank Whipple, Judge.

Action by Flora Storrie, as administratrix of the estate of J Storrie, deceased, against the Grand Trunk Elevator Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Herman W. Stevens and John C. Graham, for appellant.

George G. Moore and John L. Black, for appellee.

HOOKER C.J.

The plaintiff's husband was severely injured at the defendant's elevator and died a few hours later. This action is brought by his widow as administratrix. At the elevator the defendant had an apparatus for unloading grain from vessels. The building was three feet from the edge of the dock. The grain was raised through a leg, which extended from the upper stories of the elevator into the hold of the vessel. Grain was brought to the end of the leg in the hold by the use of large shovels, drawn by ropes which were wound upon drums in the front part of the lower story of the elevator. There were two shovels, the lines to each winding upon such a drum, which thus drew the shovel full of grain. By reverse action the shovel was drawn back empty, the lines being unwound as they were wound upon other drums. These lines extended from the elevator to the boats through a high and wide door in the first story of the elevator, upon each side of which large door was an ordinary door for ingress and egress to and from the elevator. The space in front of the drums was barred by large levers, one on each side of the large door, which set the respective drums in motion through the contact of a friction wheel. In the large door was a gate, made of heavy timbers, with rollers, over which rollers the lines passed, and by raising or lowering the gate, according to the height of the boat the lines were properly adjusted to work without friction. It is obvious that the strain on the roller, and consequently upon the gate, was considerable. The gate was suspended to a pulley, used to raise or lower it, by an eyebolt passed through the top timber or head of the gate, and on the occasion of the accident this eyebolt pulled out, letting the gate fall, and Storrie, who stood under it, was crushed.

The defendant claims that a verdict should have been directed against the plaintiff upon the ground of Storrie's contributory negligence in standing under the gate, which it claims was an unsafe place, and that it was unnecessary for him to go there. It also asserts that Storrie fixed the gate and adjusted the ropes, and had an opportunity to see, when it was suspended, that the eyebolt was loose, and had pulled up an inch or two. The gate was made of heavy timbers, two horizontal, constituting the top and bottom, connected with three perpendicular cross-pieces, mortised into the top and bottom. The middle cross-piece was immediately under the eyebolt, and a slot was cut into it to accommodate the nut on the end of the bolt and a washer, which should have been, but was not, used above the nut. The slot was filled by a block which, when in place, would conceal the nut and washer. It is manifest that, if the nut was pulled up into the wood, the eyebolt would become loose, and that, if it became loose, it must be due to one of two causes, viz., such pulling of the nut into the wood, or the loosening of the bolt from the turning of the nut, which one familiar with the construction would ordinarily know.

The accompanying diagrams show the construction, also a break in the upper horizontal bar of the gate. This crack had been discovered, and the bar had been strengthened by spiking some 2X12 pieces upon the sides. This concealed the crack. It was claimed by the defendant that James Storrie had worked for many years as foreman of the steam shovel gang at this elevator, and in making necessary repairs, and doing other work about the elevator, that he was well acquainted with the machinery, the operation of which it was his duty to oversee including the oiling of machinery, and its adjustment to the boat to be unloaded. The defendant insists that Storrie was negligent in going under the gate, and that he had no occasion to go in front of the drums or gate, between the levers, which he would have to stoop and go under the levers to do; while the plaintiff claims that it was necessary for him to go there, to see that the lines did not become tangled or 'fouled.' The defendant claims that Storrie built this gate, and put in the eyebolt and nut himself, about a year before the accident, neglecting to put on a washer, but for which the nut would not have pulled up into the wood. He then put in the plug and painted the gate. It is said that he was the only person who knew of the absence of a washer, that he knew all about the construction and strain upon the gate, and, being competent to inspect it, and being at work when it was repaired, and knowing that he was to act as foreman, he made no complaint about it being insecure, and on the day of the accident--being after the repairs were made--he oiled the gearing, and put the machinery in readiness for work, and should have discovered the defect. Just before the accident he took an oil can, stooped down and went under the lever, and entered between the gate and the drums, and as he stepped under the gate the eyebolt pulled out, with the nut upon it, and the heavy gate fell upon him. He lived two months, retaining consciousness. The...