Strehlau v. John Schroeder Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1910 |
| Citation | 125 N.W. 429,142 Wis. 215 |
| Parties | STREHLAU v. JOHN SCHROEDER LUMBER CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ashland County; E. C. Higbee, Judge.
Action by Herman Strehlau against the John Schroeder Lumber Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
In December, 1908, defendant was erecting a sawmill 196 feet long north and south by 60 feet wide by the labor of its own employés. The work had progressed so that at least part of the timbers of the second floor were in place, and a strip of flooring some four to six feet wide had been laid southerly from the north end about the middle of the building for the purpose of a runway to carry back timbers, presumably for the further construction of that floor. At the north end of the building, and opposite this runway, a tackle had been rigged by attaching the same to what is called a “gin-pole,” and a force of men were engaged in bringing timbers from outside the building to the foot of this tackle and raising them to the second floor 19 feet above the ground, and carrying them southerly along the runway to be placed in the building. Plaintiff at that time was employed in hauling the timbers with a mule to the foot of the tackle where other men fixed a chain to each timber, raised it above the second floor, where two men drew it back onto the floor, where it was dropped. This work had been going on from three to five days. The men who received the timber on the second floor had laid a block or plank two by six upon the floor near the north edge, in order that the timber, when on the floor, should lie upon such block or plank, and thus be sufficiently raised from the floor to permit disengagement of the chain with which it had been raised. There is no evidence that the master had either provided this block or plank for the purpose, or had directed its use further than that the foremen were frequently in the vicinity, and had opportunity to use it. It at all times lay loosely on the floor, and on the 15th day of December it in some undisclosed way was precipitated over the edge, and fell to the ground, striking plaintiff and causing him injury, for which this suit was brought charging defendant with negligence in placing said block on the second story floor and neglecting to fasten the same, and thereby in failing to provide a safe place for plaintiff to work; also in failing to notify him of its unsafety. At the close of the evidence the court entered judgment of nonsuit, from which plaintiff appeals.Eaton & Eaton (Collins & Eaton, of counsel), for appellant.
Doe & Ballhorn, for respondent.
DODGE, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The evidence, in which there is very little dispute, is conclusive against either negligence or any failure of duty on the part of the defendant. The situation is the usual one of an entirely safe place--that is, a proper site--being furnished to a force of employés upon which they are to construct a building with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Driscoll v. Allis-Chalmers Co.
...nonuse of the runway. And upon these propositions counsel for appellant rely on several Wisconsin cases, notably Strehlau v. Schroeder L. Co., 142 Wis. 215, 125 N. W. 429;Gereg v. Milwaukee G. L. Co., 128 Wis. 35, 107 N. W. 35, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 367;Williams v. North W. L. Co., 124 Wis. 32......
-
Knudsen v. La Crosse Stone Co.
...the foreman and changed from time to time in the due course of operations the safe place rule does not apply. Strehlau v. John Schroeder Lumber Co., 142 Wis. 215, 125 N. W. 429. That was applied to a quarry crew in Mielke v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 103 Wis. 1, 79 N. W. 22, 74 Am. St. Rep. 834, w......
-
Scieczinski v. Filer & Stowell Co.
...since, notably in Knudsen v. La Crosse Stone Company, 145 Wis. 394, 130 N. W. 519. 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 223;Strehlau v. John Schroeder Lumber Company, 142 Wis. 215, 125 N. W. 429. If it should be changed, and I would not suggest to the contrary, then that should be done by the Legislature an......
-
Murray v. Paine Lumber Co.
...as originally constructed. The defendant cites the cases of Brown v. Conners, 149 Wis. 403, 135 N. W. 857,Strehlau v. John Schroeder L. Co., 142 Wis. 215, 125 N. W. 429,McKillop v. Superior Ship Building Co., 143 Wis. 454, 127 N. W. 1053,Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co., 129 Wis. 98, 108 N.......