Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co.

California Supreme Court Dec 12, 1894 No. No. 15599Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit because the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace is non-delegable, and whether a minor employee appreciated the specific dangers of an unsafe task is a question for the jury.

Issues

Whether an employer is liable for injuries resulting from an unsafe workplace despite delegating supervision to a machinist.
Whether a minor employee's knowledge of workplace hazards constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is settled beyond controversy that it is the duty of an employer to furnish a suitable and safe place for his employee to work, and suitable and safe appliances and machinery for him to work with”

“Whether the plaintiff was guilty of such negligence as would prevent his recovery was, under the facts in this case, a question for the jury.”

Synopsis

Master and Servant—Negligence—Safety of Place and Appliances— Representation of Employer—Fellow-servant.—It is the duty of an employer to furnish a safe and suitable place for his employee to work, and suitable and safe appliances and machinery for him to work with; and the employer cannot be exonerated from liability to an employee for breach of this duty, by delegating it either to a superior officer, agent, or servant, or to a subordinate g.gent or servant; and the person to whom such duty is delegated, who undertakes or omits to perform it, is the representative of the employer, and not a mere fellow-servant with the one who is injured, as the result of the breach of such duty.

Id.—Contributory Negligence—Knowledge of Danger.—When it is claimed that an injured employee was guilty of contributory negligence it must appear that he not only knew, or had the means of knowledge, of the unsafeness of the place, appliances, or machinery, but also that he knew, or ought to have known, of the danger to which he was himself personally exposed.

Id.—Question of Fact—Injury to Minor—Insecure Plank Upon Platform—Special Employment without Warning—Observation of Danger—Nonsuit.—Where a minor was employed as a press-boy in a horseshoe-shop, and was ordered by the machinist who had general supervision of the boys in the whole shop to go upon a platform by means of a ladder, where he had never been sent before, to hold a broken belt over a shaft, while the machinist fixed it, and was injured by falling forward upon the shaft, as the result of a toppling plank insecurely fastened, one end of which rested on an upright of the ladder, and was not cautioned before going that any danger attended the duty assigned him, although he noticed how the plank was supported when he went up the ladder with the belt, and also that the plank shook a little when he went along over it, to place the belt over the shaft; held, that the question whether the minor was guilty of such negligence as to prevent his recovery is a question of fact for the jury, and it cannot be said to be established by the evidence that the minor knew, or ought to have known, of the danger to which he was exposed, and it is error to grant a non-suit in such case.

The Court. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The answer denied that the defendant was in any way responsible for the injuries complained of, and alleged that they were caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.

It was proved at the trial that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to work in its horseshoe-shop in November, 1891, and that he continued to work there until he was injured, on June 13,1892, at which time he was sixteen years of age. When he was employed he was taken by the foreman, Ingram, to one of the machines for making horseshoes, and was told that the machinist would show him what to do, and to obey whatever the machinist told him. There were four machines in the shop, and three boys were employed on each machine: the furnace-boy, the bender-boy, and the press-boy. The machinist, Brunig, had general supervision of the boys and directed and ordered them about. He put the plaintiff to work as a press-boy, and directed him generally about his work until he was injured.

The machines were worked by belts which ran up over a large revolving shaft that extended through the building and was operated by steam-power. This shaft was about twenty feet above the floor, and to reach it one had to go up a ladder, the lower end of which rested on the floor, and upper end against one of the stringers of the building. Lying across the stringers were a few loose planks, which were not nailed down and were easily moved. One end of one of the planks rested on one of the uprights of the ladder, and was raised a little above the stringer.

[82]The belt which ran the machine on which plaintiff was working was old and had .broken many times. It broke twice in the forenoon of the day when plaintiff was injured, and then the machinist went up and fixed it. It broke again in the afternoon, and the machinist directed the plaintiff to go up and hold the belt while he fixed it. The plaintiff had never before been sent up to hold the belt, and was given no instructions about the danger of the place to which he was sent. He did not want to go, but was ordered quite positively to go, and thereupon took the belt, weighing forty or forty-five pounds, on his shoulders and started up the ladder. When he got to the top of the ladder he stepped off upon one of the planks, and walked along to the shaft where he was to hold the belt. The shaft was running at full speed, and he put the ends of the belt over it and dropped them down, and then started back on the plank to go down,.when the machinist halloed to him: “Go back and hold that belt.” He then went back and held the belt up from the shaft in a loop. He held it there for about ten minutes, when the machinist called out to him: “Wait, I am going to get some lacing.” He became tired standing there and holding up the belt, and moved his foot on the plank, when it turned over and he fell forward upon the shaft. His right arm was caught between the belt and shaft and torn completely off at the elbow, and it became necessary to amputate it near the shoulder. He was also otherwise badly bruised and injured.

Mullin v. California Horseshoe Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief