Larsen v. Magne-Silica Co.

California Court of Appeal Aug 9, 1910 No. Civ. No. 824.Published

Before: Allen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employer is liable for injuries sustained by an inexperienced, youthful employee when the employer fails to warn of known dangers in a hazardous task and directs the employee to perform work outside the scope of their original employment. The jury's determination that the employee did not assume the risk is conclusive where evidence of the employee's knowledge of the danger is not clear and explicit.

Issues

Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to warn an inexperienced employee of the dangers associated with mining operations.
Whether the employee assumed the risk of injury by following the instructions of a supervisor to perform dangerous work.
Whether the supervisor's directions to the employee were attributable to the defendant employer.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In work of this character where inexperienced men are employed, it is incumbent upon the employer, if the work be of a dangerous character, to apprise employees of the danger and instruct them in the manner of the performance of their duties”

Synopsis

Negligence—Employment op Inexperienced Youth at Unsafe Mining—Failure to Warn op Danger.—Where the evidence shows that long experience is required in order safely to conduct a mine for infusorial earth, and that an inexperienced youth previously employed for other work was put to work in such mine, without previous warning or instruction as to the danger incident to the work, and in the conduct of such work he was seriously injured in obeying an order of the superintendent in charge of the mine, as the result of the mine caving upon him, the defendant was guilty of negligence in putting the inexperienced plaintiff at such dangerous work without any warning as to the danger.

Id.—Duty op Employer to Minimize Danger to Inexperienced Servants.—Where inexperienced servants are employed in dangerous work, it is incumbent on the employer to apprise such employees of the danger, and to instruct them in the manner of the performance of their duties, so as to minimize the danger incident thereto.

Id.—General Superintendent Representative op Principal—Negligence not op Fellow-servant.—One who exercises the general duties of a superintendent, in directing the movements and work of employees, is discharging a duty to his principal in so doing, although he may have no power to hire or discharge servants. The negligence of such superintendent in failing to instruct an inexperienced youth and warn him of the danger is not that of a fellow-servant, but is the negligence of the principal.

Id.—General Rule Requiring Instruction.—The same general rule which requires the instruction of an inexperienced servant in the use of dangerous machinery requires instruction by the employer to an employee in any employment of a dangerous character.

Id.—Right op Servant to Rely on Superior Knowledge op Master —Duty—Exception.—When an inexperienced servant is told to perform work, the servant’s ordinary duty is to obey, and he has the ordinary right to rely upon the superior knowledge of the master, and to assume that the master would not put him in a place of peril, unless the peril is so obvious that ordinary prudence could discern it and refuse obedience.

Id.—Knowledge and Appreciation op Danger by Inexperienced Youth—Matter por Jury—Conclusive Verdict.—The questions whether or not the plaintiff, as an inexperienced youth, had sufficient knowledge and appreciation of the danger to have assumed the risk were matters for the determination of the jury from the facts of the case, taking into consideration his inexperience, the nature of the work to which he was assigned, and the danger attending it, and the failure of defendant to give any warning concerning it. Its verdict for the plaintiff is conclusive that he did not assume the risk of the special danger in which he was placed.

ALLEN, P. J.

The action was one to recover damages on account of personal injuries. Trial was had before a jury, verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from the judgment and an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.

The contention of appellant that there is no evidence tending to show neglect on the part of defendant or its officers, if determined adversely to appellant, disposes of the questions involved in the motion for a nonsuit, as well as the other specifications of error presented.

We find evidence in the record tending to show that defendant was engaged in operating a mine from which it was seeking to extract infusorial earth. This earth when in place is shown to lie in strata overlying which heavier earth, ordinarily of a depth of five to six feet, is found. The safest and best way to mine for this infusorial earth was to first

[72]

remove the waste on top. This was the customary way and the safest way. Defendant was undertaking, at the time of the injury complained of, to mine this earth without removing the waste and without propping or supporting the same, which was a dangerous method of procedure. Plaintiff, a youth of less than eighteen, without previous experience as a miner, was employed by defendant generally without reference to any particular kind of employment. It is shown that while he was employed by one Starr, the superintendent of the mine, yet in the absence of Starr therefrom one Jacobson, a miner, directed the other employees as to their duties and the manner of their performance. Plaintiff during his employment, which lasted several months, was chiefly engaged in hauling waste and piling rock, and much of the time working upon a ranch owned by the superintendent, and was not employed in connection with the mining operations proper to the extent of a week during his entire employment. It appears that on the Saturday preceding the injury, which occurred on Monday, the superintendent directed plaintiff to assist the other employees who were taking out this rock or infusorial earth from- the face of the cliff, and in which operation they were prying out the rock without removing the waste. This work plaintiff continued until the close of the day, and on the Monday following reported for work, and, Starr being absent, Jacobson directed him to continue his previous employment. Plaintiff undertook to remove a portion of this rock strata, as the other employees were seeking to do, by prying out the rock without removing the waste, and. in so doing a cave occurred and large quantities of earth and rock fell upon plaintiff and injured him. Neither the defendant nor anyone in authority or connected with the operation of the mine ever disclosed to plaintiff the danger connected with the work, nor any steps which should be taken by him to avert danger. It is true that upon one occasion, while plaintiff was engaged in hauling rock, he saw a large quantity of earth fall, but did not see what occasioned it. Before plaintiff undertook to remove the wedge of rock which occasioned the cave producing the injury, he applied to Jacobson for instructions as to whether he should remove the waste first before seeking to take ont the wedge, and was told to proceed to take out the wedge. After re

Larsen v. Magne-Silica Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

ALLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief