Swords v. McDonell

• Decision Date: 17 September 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

154 N.W. 258

31 N.D. 494

JOHN SWORDS v. BENJ. MCDONELL

Supreme Court of North Dakota

September 17, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County; LEIGHTON, J.

Action by John Swords against Benjamin McDonell. Plaintiff had judgment. Defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Greenleaf Bradford, & Nash, for appellant.

It is the duty of the master to furnish a reasonably safe place for his servant to work. He is not required to provide a place that is absolutely safe. Frequently the work which the servant is employed to do is dangerous in itself, and of course the servant assumes the ordinary risk in performing that work. Ross-Paris Co. v. Brown, 121 Ky. 821, 90 S.W. 568; Wilson v. Chess & W. Co. 117 Ky. 567, 78 S.W. 453; Wood, Mast. & S. § 325.

A person who acts with full knowledge of all the attendant perils must be held to have assumed the risk. Mellott v Louisville & N. R. Co. 101 Ky. 212, 40 S.W. 696; Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Crotty, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 832 73 C. C. A. 147, 141 F. 913; Gorman v. Des Moines Brick Mfg. Co. 99 Iowa 257, 68 N.W. 674; Kean v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling Mills, 66 Mich. 277, 11 Am. St Rep. 492, 33 N.W. 305; Toomey v. Eureka Iron & Steel Works, 89 Mich. 249, 50 N.W. 850; Showalter v. Fairbanks, M. & Co. 88 Wis. 376, 60 N.W. 257; Writt v. Girard Lumber Co. 91 Wis. 496, 65 N.W. 173; Bradshaw v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 14 Ky. L. Rep. 688, 21 S.W. 346; Linch v. Sagamore Mfg. Co. 143 Mass. 246, 9 N.E. 728; Wescott v. New York & N.E. R. Co. 153 Mass. 460, 27 N.E. 10; Reed v. Stockmeyer, 20 C. C. A. 381, 34 U.S. App. 727, 74 F. 186; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U.S. 439, 24 L. ed. 506, 7 Am. Neg. Cas. 340.

The fact that he was ordered by a superior to do the act, while he knows and appreciates the dangers attendant, and where the act is one of those assumed, is wholly immaterial. The master incurs no special liability or responsibility by ordering the servant to perform one of his ordinary duties in the regular course of his work. Davis v. Detroit & M. R. Co. 20 Mich. 105, 4 Am. Rep. 364; Ruchinsky v. French, 168 Mass. 68, 46 N.E. 417, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 620; Kean v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling Mills, 66 Mich. 277, 11 Am. St. Rep. 492, 33 N.W. 395; Paule v. Florence Min. Co. 80 Wis. 350, 50 N.W. 189; Welch v. Brainard, 108 Mich. 38, 65 N.W. 667; Linch v. Sagamore Mfg. Co. 143 Mass. 200, 9 N.E. 728; Hoth v. Peters, 55 Wis. 405, 13 N.W. 219; Beittenmiller v. Bergner & E. Brewing Co. 22 W. N. C. 33, 12 A. 599; Showalter v. Fairbanks, M. & Co. 88 Wis. 376, 60 N.W. 257; Burlington & C. R. Co. v. Liehe, 17 Colo. 280, 29 P. 175; Stuart v. New Albany Mfg. Co. 15 Ind.App. 184, 43 N.E. 961; Burke v. Davis, 191 Mass. 20, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 791, 114 Am. St. Rep. 591, 76 N.E. 1039; Frangiose v. Horton, 26 R. I. 291, 58 A. 944, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 371; Toomey v. Eureka Iron & Steel Works, 89 Mich. 249, 50 N.W. 850; Welch v. Carlucci Stone Co. 7 Ann. Cas. 301, note.

The test of the servant's conduct as to negligence, where he is acting in obedience to orders given, and with a knowledge and appreciation of the attendant circumstances, is the same as in other cases; that is, was his conduct that of a reasonably prudent man under like circumstances. Hubler v. Johnson-McLean Co. 74 Neb. 840, 105 N.W. 247, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 362; Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Crotty, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 832, 73 C. C. A. 147, 141 F. 913; Stephens v. Southern R. Co. 82 S.C. 542, 64 S.E. 601; Joswoyak v. Lake Shore & N. S. R. Co. 4 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 317; Greeley v. Foster, 32 Colo. 292, 75 P. 351; McArthur Bros. Co. v. Nordstrom, 87 Ill.App. 554; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Sanders, 42 Ind. 585, 86 N.E. 430; McArthur Bros. Co. v. Troutt, 88 Ill.App. 638; Attleton v. Bibb Mfg. Co. 5 Ga.App. 777, 63 S.E. 918; Paterson v. Erie R. Co. 78 N.J.L. 592, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 209, 75 A. 922.

Where there is no allegation of special damages in the complaint, and where there is no proper proof of same, it was highly prejudicial for the court to instruct upon such subject, for same was in no wise an issue in the case. Such instruction and especially when the court expressly called the jury's attention to the matter of expenses, as one of the elements of damages, was prejudicial error. Barron v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 277, 113 N.W. 102.

"When actual pecuniary damages are sought, some evidence must be given showing their existence and extent. If this is not done, the jury cannot indulge in an arbitrary estimate of their own." Sedgw. Damages, §§ 180, 483; Smith v. Evans, 13 Neb. 314, 14 N.W. 406; Taulbee v. Moore, 106 Ky. 749, 51 S.W. 564; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Thornsberry, Tex. , 17 S.W. 521, 6 Am. Neg. Cas. 610; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 718; Reed v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 57 Iowa 23, 10 N.W. 286; Brown v. White, 202 Pa. 297, 58 L.R.A. 321, 51 A. 962.

A verdict should be supported by legal evidence; otherwise it is the whim, caprice, or guess of the jury. Cousins v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 96 Mich. 386, 56 N.W. 14, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 152; Stafford v. Oskaloosa, 57 Iowa 748, 11 N.W. 668; Eckerd v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 70 Iowa 353, 30 N.W. 615, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 373; Olson v. Erickson, 53 Wash. 458, 102 P. 400.

E. R. Sinkler, for respondent.

"The law would seem plain where the menace or danger is so uncertain as to cause discussion between the employees and the employer, with the result that the employer dissuades the employee of his apprehension that the doctrine of assumption of risks cannot be invoked."

The mere fact that the servant can do the act or work directed to be done by him, by the use of extraordinary care, caution, and skill, does not render him guilty of concurrent negligence. Umsted v. Colgate Farmers' Elevator Co. 18 N.D. 316, 122 N.W. 390; Webb v. Dinnie Bros. 22 N.D. 377, 134 N.W. 41; Haas v. Balch, 6 C. C. A. 201, 12 U.S. App. 534, 56 F. 984; Brown v. Lennane, 155 Mich. 686, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 453, 118 N.W. 581; Nelson-Bethel Clothing Co. v. Pitts, 131 Ky. 65, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1014, 114 S.W. 331; McKee v. Tourtelotte, 167 Mass. 69, 48 L.R.A. 542, 44 N.E. 1071; Dallemand v. Saalfeldt, 48 L.R.A. 753, and note, 175 Ill. 310, 67 Am. St. Rep. 214, 51 N.E. 645, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 9; McBrayer v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. 89 S.C. 387, 71 S.E. 980; Chicago Anderson Pressed Brick Co. v. Sobkowiak, 148 Ill. 573, 36 N.E. 572; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Ward, 90 Va. 687, 24 L.R.A. 717, 44 Am. St. Rep. 945, 19 S.E. 849; 4 Labatt, Mast. & S. pp. 3936, 3938, 3960, 3965, and 3967; Faulkner v. Mammoth Min. Co. 23 Utah 437, 66 P. 801; Miller v. Bullion-Beck & C. Min. Co. 18 Utah 358, 55 P. 59; Anderson v. Pitt Iron Min. Co. 103 Minn. 252, 114 N.W. 954; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Jones, 7 Ann. Cas. 435, and note, 77 Ark. 367, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 837, 92 S.W. 244; Bennett v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. Tex. Civ. App. , 159 S.W. 132, 5 N. C. C. A. 572.

A servant cannot assume a risk which he does not believe to exist. "There is much reason in the rule that allows a favorable construction to be placed on the act of the servant, done in obedience to the order of his superior, though involving danger. Obedience to orders given by the master becomes a habit with the servant. It is expected that he will obey. Whilst the law will not excuse the servant where the thing ordered is plainly and manifestly perilous, it will do so where a man of ordinary prudence and care would under the circumstances have obeyed the order, although involving danger." Van Duzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies, 61 Ohio St. 298, 55 N.E. 998; Cook v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 34 Minn. 45, 24 N.W. 311, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 247; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Jones, 7 Ann. Cas. 442, note; 4 Labatt, Mast. & S. pp. 3960-3974; Graham v. Newburg Orrel Coal & Coke Co. 38 W.Va. 273, 18 S.E. 584; Harder & H. Coal Min. Co. v. Schmidt, 43 C. C. A. 532, 104 F. 282, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 227; Bradbury v. Goodwin, 108 Ind. 286, 9 N.E. 302; Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson, 39 Mich. 492, 33 Am. Rep. 423, 10 Mor. Min. Rep. 39; Daley v. Schaaf, 28 Hun, 314; Stomne v. Hanford Produce Co. 108 Iowa 137, 78 N.W. 841; Gundlach v. Schott, 192 Ill. 509, 85 Am. St. Rep. 348, 61 N.E. 322; Shadford v. Ann Arbor Street R. Co. 121 Mich. 224, 80 N.W. 30, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 579; Purcell Mill & Elevator Co. v. Kirkland, 2 Ind. Terr. 169, 47 S.W. 311; Anderson v. Steinreich, 32 Misc. 680, 66 N.Y.S. 498; Warner v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 62 Mo.App. 192; Fried & R. Packing Co. v. Hugel, 105 C. C. A. 402, 183 F. 110.

It is the master's duty to furnish the servant with a safe place in which to work. If the place is not safe, and the master knows it is not safe, it is then his absolute duty to warn the servant of the danger. Webb v. Dinnie Bros. 22 N.D. 377, 134 N.W. 41; Haas v. Balch, 6 C. C. A. 201, 211, 12 U.S. App. 534, 56 F. 984; O'Brien v. Nute-Hallett Co. 177 Mass. 422, 59 N.E. 65; Cases cited under Assumption of Risk, supra.

Where a party to an action deems the charge of the court not sufficiently explicit, he should present written requests for instructions. State ex rel. Pepple v. Banik, 21 N.D. 417, 131 N.W. 262; State v. Haynes, 7 N.D. 352, 75 N.W. 267; State v. Rosencrans, 9 N.D. 163, 82 N.W. 422; Landis v. Fyles, 18 N.D. 590, 120 N.W. 566; Carr v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 16 N.D. 227, 112 N.W. 972; Zilke v. Johnson, 22 N.D. 83, 132 N.W. 640, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1005; Rev. Codes 1905, § 7021, Comp. Laws 1913, § 7620.

That nominal damages can be recovered when no appreciable injury has been shown is well settled. Seitz v. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co. 16 Daly, 264, 10 N.Y.S. 1, 6 Am. Neg. Cas 42; Western R. Co. v. Stone, 145 Ala. 663, 39 So. 723; Swift v. Broyles, 115 Ga. 885, 58 L.R.A. 390, 42 S.E. 277; Lance v. Apgar, 60 N.J.L. 447, 38 A. 695; Comp. Laws 1913, § 7184; Ashby v. White, 2 Ld. Raym. 955,...