The North Chicago Rolling Mills Co. v. Monka
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Citation | 4 Bradw. 664,4 Ill.App. 664 |
| Parties | THE NORTH CHICAGO ROLLING MILLS COMPANYv.ANDREW MONKA. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed December 8, 1879.
This was an action on the case, brought by Andrew Monka against the North Chicago Rolling Mills Company, to recover damages for a personal injury suffered by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant. The circumstances of the injury, as disclosed by the record, are substantially as follows:
The defendant at the time owned and operated a blast furnace and rolling mills in Chicago, and connected with the furnace were certain underground flues, which occasionally had to be entered by the workman for the purpose of removing the ashes which accumulated therein. To cut off the gases in the flues so as to enable the workman to enter the same, an iron door or “damper” was made to slide through grooves from the surface of the ground downwards, to the bottom of the flue. To facilitate the raising and lowering of this door, a weight was attached thereto by means of a wire cable running over a pulley, located at a convenient height from the ground.
In April, 1873, the plaintiff became employed as a laborer in and about the defendant's furnace, and continued in such employment until sometime in September, 1876, when, at the request of the defendant's superintendent, he undertook to assist in lowering said door, and while he was so doing, the cable became detached from the door, and the weight falling, struck and injured his foot so that a portion of it had to be amputated.
The negligence charged against the defendant consists in furnishing and suffering to remain in use, an insufficient and defective clamp for attaching and suspending said weight. Said clamp was what is known in mechanics as a ““sister hook,” which consists of two hooks engaging in opposite directions, so that when closed, the one laps upon the other so as to form a complete circle. The evidence shows that said clamp had been attached to said door for several years, and when first attached, it was bound around with a cord to prevent the hooks from separating, and afterwards the cord was removed and an iron wire substituted in its place. It appears that the damper had to be used only at intervals of several months, and there is evidence tending to show that, at the time the plaintiff was injured the wrapping had in some way got off from said hooks. One of the questions in the case was, whether the employees of the defendant who were charged with the duty of seeing to it that said apparatus was in repair, had actual or constructive notice of the condition of said clamp. It was urged that the plaintiff either knew, or by a proper attention to his duties might have known, that said clamp was in a dangerous condition.
The first and fifth instructions given to the jury at the instance of the plaintiff, are as follows:
1st. “The jury are instructed, as a matter of law, that it is the duty of an employer to provide ordinarily safe machinery and appliances in his business, and keep the same in reasonable repair, and to use all reasonable precaution in protecting the workmen employed in such business from injuries which might be caused by the neglect of the employer in that regard; and if the jury shall believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, the North Chicago Rolling Mills Company, at about the time mentioned in the declaration, and that the plaintiff had his right foot crushed by the falling of a weight used to balance an iron door or damper in defendant's rolling mill, or furnace, and that such weight fell in consequence of defendant's neglect in not properly and safely fastening or attaching the hooks by which the same was fastened to the rope connected with such weight, then the jury must find the defendant guilty; unless the jury shall believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff was on his part negligent at the time of the accident, and that his negligence, or that of his co-laborers at the time, materially contributed to the accident.
5th. The jury are instructed that it is the duty of a master or employer to provide machinery and apparatus reasonably safe for the purpose for which it is used; and if the jury shall believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant company, and was, while working in the mill of the defendant, under the direction of the manager or superintendent of defendant, pushing or pulling down a door or damper which was attached to a wire rope, which wire rope ran over a pulley, and to the other end of which, and suspended in the air, was attached a block of iron of about 1000 pounds weight, in such a position that if it dropped it would be likely to fall upon a person who should be engaged in pushing down said door; and shall further believe from the evidence, that from want of due skill and attention on the part of defendant's manager or superintendent, or other officer, the means of appliance by which said door or damper was attached to said wire rope were insufficient in strength or construction, or unskillfully applied to the purposes of suspending said door or damper, or that the chain or rope attached to said door or damper was unskillfully or negligently attached, and that the defendant, by its superintendent or manager, was negligent in that behalf, and that by reason of such insufficient, unskillful or negligent attachment, and without any carelessness on the part of plaintiff, or of his co-laborers acting with him at the time the rope became detached from the said door or damper, and the weight suspended by said rope suddenly fell to the ground and struck and crushed the foot of plaintiff, then the jury should find the defendant guilty, and may assess the plaintiff's damages at such sum as you believe from the evidence will remunerate plaintiff for the injury by him sustained.”
The sixth instruction asked on behalf of the defendant, was modified by the court by the insertion of the words in italics, and given to the jury so modified. Said instruction, as given, was as follows:
“If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff, with other workmen, got upon the damper in question, and took hold of the wire rope attached to the same, and he, or those with him, negligently or carelessly pulled the same down, and that he or they were careless in that behalf, by reason of which the rope became detached, and thereby caused the plaintiff's injuries, then he cannot recover, unless the jury also find, from the evidence, that the defendant was guilty of greater negligence or carelessness in the construction of the appliance for moving said damper, which contributed to the accident in a greater degree, so that...
To continue reading
Request your trial