Trcka v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.

Citation100 Iowa 205,69 N.W. 422
PartiesTRCKA v. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY. CO.
Decision Date10 December 1896
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from superior court of Cedar Rapids; T. M. Giberson, Judge.

Action at law to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of the defendant. At the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, the court sustained a motion of the defendant for a verdict, and judgment for costs was rendered in its favor. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Rickel & Crocker, for appellant.

S. K. Tracy, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

In April, 1894, the plaintiff was an employé of the defendant, engaged in operating a bolt machine in its shops at Cedar Rapids. Shafts on which were fixed pulleys for use in running various machines were fastened near the ceiling of the room in which the plaintiff was at work. A machinist named Wilde, in the employment of the defendant, was putting up a counter shaft near the place where the plaintiff was operating his machine, and, to accomplish that purpose, used two trestles, on which were placed two planks. Each trestle was about 4 feet wide, and 7 feet long at the base, 2 feet 6 inches wide, by 3 feet 4 inches long at the top, and 13 feet high. The trestles were placed 7 or 8 feet apart, and each of the planks which rested upon them was 10 or 12 feet in length, 12 inches in width, and 1 3/4 in thickness. They were laid on the tops of the trestles 3 or 4 inches apart, and, with the trestles, constituted a scaffold on which the work of putting up the counter shaft was being done. The top of the scaffold was reached by means of a ladder 18 feet in length, which was so placed that its upper end rested partially against the top of one of the trestles, and partially against one of the planks. Wilde was assisted in the work by an employé of the defendant named Kouba. He was 19 years of age, and usually operated a lathe, but was required to aid Wilde by carrying, onto the scaffold, ropes, bolts, and other articles which were needed, and by removing them, and in other ways. In rendering such assistance, he ascended and descended the ladder several times. At one time, while he was descending it, the end of the planks against which it was in part leaning slipped off the trestle and fell, and the end of one of them struck the plaintiff on the back part of his head, as he was working at his machine, and inflicted a serious injury. For that he seeks to recover. The grounds of the motion for a verdict were stated as follows: “The injury is the result of a mere accident, and not caused by any negligence of the defendant; and if any one was negligent, causing the accident, it was the plaintiff's co-laborers and employés, for which the defendant is not liable in damages to the plaintiff.”

The motion is not based on negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and the case must be treated on the theory that he did not in any manner contribute to the accident of which he complains. It is the well-settled rule in this state, as it is at common law, that a master is not liable for personal injuries to a servant caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, acting as such while both are engaged in the same common employment. Wilson v. Quarry Co., 77 Iowa, 430, 42 N. W. 360;Peterson v. Mining Co., 50 Iowa, 673;Sullivan v. Railroad Co., 11 Iowa, 421. See, also, 1 Shear. & R. Neg. § 180. Section 1307 of the Code has created an exception in favor of employés of railway corporations when injured through the negligence of co-employés in the use and operation of any railway, but this case is not within that exception. The plaintiff, Wilde, and Kouba were fellow servants, engaged in the same general employment. It is true that the plaintiff was not subject to the immediate supervision of the foreman who had control of the other two, but that fact was immaterial. Bier v. Railroad Co. (Ind. Sup.) 31 N. E. 471.

It is urged by the appellant that this case does not fall within the rule stated, but is governed by the rule which requires the master to provide his servant with a safe place in which to work, and to furnish suitable machinery and appliances with which to do the work, and holds the master liable for injuries which result from his failure to perform that duty. There is no serious disagreement with regard to these rules, but the important question to be determined is, under which of them does this case fall? In Fink v. Ice Co., 84 Iowa, 322, 51 N. W. 155, relied opon by the appellant, the plaintiff was injured by reason of defects in an ice slide and trestlework on which he was employed. The plaintiff in Haworth v. Manufacturing Co., 87 Iowa, 766, 51 N. W. 68, and 62 N. W. 325, was injured by reason of a defect in a platform on which he was working. The ice slide and trestlework, in one case, and the platform used in the other, were furnished by the masters, who were charged with the duty of using reasonable care to make them safe, and the masters were held responsible for failing to perform that duty. In the case of Railroad Co. v. Holcomb (Ind. App.) 36 N. E. 39, it appeared that the defendant in error was injured while working for the railway company as car repairer, in consequence of the failure of the company to give notice of the approach of an engine on the track where he was at work. It was held to be the duty of the company to exercise reasonable care to make and keep safe the place where the car repairer was at work, and that the failure of its employés to give the required notice of danger was the failure of the company, for which it was responsible. The case of Railroad Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 13 Sup. Ct. 914, also relied upon by the appellant, did not decide any question involved in this case; and that is true of the case of Morton v. Railroad Co. (Mich.) 46 N. W. 111.

The charge of negligence made by plaintiff is that the scaffold was negligently constructed, of materials which were not suitable or safe; that the defendant failed to furnish proper materials for it; that the planks were not properly fastened to the tops of the trestles to prevent slipping; that the ladder furnished was warped, crooked, and unsafe; that a young and inexperienced workman was placed upon the scaffold, without instruction with respect to the proper manner of using it,--“by reason of all of which the place of the plaintiff's work was rendered unsafe, and plaintiff was endangered.” The evidence shows that the trestles were strongly built, and so heavy that four men were required to put them...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1920
    ... ... 246, 42 Am. Rep. 543; ... Shanke v. United States Heater Co ... (1900), 125 Mich. 346, 84 N.W. 283; Tricka ... v. Burlington C. R. & N. R. Co. (1896), 100 ... Iowa, 205, 69 N.W. 422; Quinn v ... Fish (1893), 6 Misc. 105, 26 N.Y.S. 10; ... Balleng v. New York ... ...
  • Haskell & Barker Car Company v. Przezdziankowski
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1908
    ... ... Missouri Car, etc., ... Co. (1888), 32 Mo.App. 367; McLaughlin v ... Camden Iron Works (1897), 60 N.J.L. 557, 38 A. 677; ... Trcka v. Burlington, etc., R. Co. (1896), ... 100 Iowa 205, 69 N.W. 422; Cleveland, etc., R. Co ... v. Brown (1896), 73 F. 970, 20 C.C.A. 147; ... ...
  • Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Prezezdziankowski
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1908
    ...v. Missouri, etc., Co., 32 Mo. App. 367;McLaughlin v. Camden Iron Works, 60 N. J. Law, 557, 38 Atl. 677;Trcka v. Burlington, etc., Ry. Co., 100 Iowa, 205, 69 N. W. 422;Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. Brown, 73 Fed. 970, 20 C. C. A. 147;McGee v. Boston Cordage Co., 139 Mass. 445, 1 N. E. 745;Pot......
  • Trcka v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1896

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT