Jager v. California Bridge Co.

California Supreme Court Nov 27, 1894 No. No. 15618Published

Before: Fleet, Garoutte, Harbison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A corporation may be sued in the county where the injury occurred regardless of its principal place of business, and a master has a continuing duty to maintain appliances in a safe condition. A judgment will not be reversed for a technically defective pleading if the issues were fairly tried and no injury resulted to the appellant.

Issues

Whether a corporation is entitled to a change of venue to the county of its principal place of business in a personal injury action.
Whether the overruling of a special demurrer for uncertainty constitutes reversible error when the record shows no resulting injury.
Whether the evidence supports a finding of defective construction and maintenance of the piledriver.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a corporation may be sued and trial had in the county where the injuries are received.”

“It is not every error of the trial court committed in overruling a special demurrer to a pleading that will justify this court in sending the case back for a new trial.”

“the rule is elementary that the same duty devolves upon the master in subsequently maintaining the appliance in a safe and suitable condition as rested upon him when it was originally furnished to his servant.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The judgment should be reversed, as the injuries received by the plaintiff were received because of the carelessness of the engineer, who was a fellow-servant with the plaintiff. (Long v. Coronado R. R. Co., 96 Cal. 269; Trewatha v. Buchanan etc. Co., 96 Cal. 495; Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 N. Y. 516; 37 Am. Rep. 521; Randall v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 478.) An employer is not an insurer, and if he has exercised reasonable care in providing safe machinery and appliances he is not liable, even though after an accident it may be seen that with some other appliance the accident would not have happened. (Burke v. Witherbee, 98 N. Y. 562; Washington etc. R. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554.) The plaintiff assumed the risk of the employment. ( Washington etc. R. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554.)

It is the duty of the master to provide safe machinery and appliances for his employees. (Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 420; 25 Am. St. Rep. 138.) A servant does not assume the risk arising from the negligence of the employer in providing unsuitable machinery and appliances. (Long v. Coronado R. R. Co., 96 Cal. 274; Trask v. California St. R. R. Co., 63 Cal. 96; Magee v. North Pac. Coast R. R., 78 Cal. 430; 12 Am. St. Rep. 69; Beeson v. Green Mt. G. M. Co., 57 Cal. 20; Brown v. Sennett, 68 Cal. 226; 58 Am. Rep. 8; Sanborn v. Madera etc. Co., 70 Cal. 262; Hough v. Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 100 U. S. 213; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46; 36 Am. Rep. 575.)

Garoutte, J. Respondent was injured while employed by appellant in working upon and about a machine engaged in driving piles. He recovered a judgment for such injuries, and this appeal is taken from that judgment and from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

[544]In due time appellant moved for a change of venue of the action from the city and county of San Francisco to the county of Alameda, upon the ground that appellant’s principal place of business was in Alameda county, and alleging that such fact was so declared in its articles of incorporation. This motion was denied, and complaint is now made of the action of the court. Appellant was not entitled to a change of place of trial upon the ground presented, for a corporation may be sued and trial had in the county where the injuries are received. It has no absolute right to have the action tried in the county where its principal place of business is located. (Trezevant v. Strong Co., 102 Cal. 47.)

It is insisted that a special demurrer to the complaint upon the ground of uncertainty was well taken. The complaint alleged “ that the defendant so carelessly and negligently constructed said piledriver, and so carelessly and negligently provided unsafe and unsuitable machinery and appliances with which to do the work, that upon raising the hammer to drive the first pile the crossbeam on the top of the said piledriver was pulled off, and the said crossbeam fell upon the plaintiff while in the line of his employment and duty aforesaid.” This allegation could have been made more definite and certain; at the same time it states the facts as to the manner and cause of the accident fairly well and sufficiently in detail to defeat a reversal of the judgment upon the ground of a technically defective pleading. It is not every error of the trial court committed in overruling a special demurrer to a pleading that will justify this court in sending the case back for a new trial. When the issues are fairly made by the answer, and the evidence bearing upon the issues is fairly presented to the court, there is no reason why a defective allegation in the complaint, even though it be unsuccessfully assailed by a special demurrer, should cause a reversal of the judgment and a retrial of the case. It is fully apparent by the record that no injury resulted to the appellant by the action of the court, even conced[545]

Jager v. California Bridge Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief