Russell v. Pacific Can Co.
Before: Garoutte
Synopsis
Negligence—Master and Servant—Unsafe Water-closet—Discharge of Steam—Failure of Employer to Examine.—It is the duty of an employer in a manufactory to furnish a reasonably safe water-closet for the use of employees, and to use reasonable and ordinary care in the selection of it, and in the inspection and keeping of it in proper condition; and where the employer was accustomed to discharge steam into the water-closet through an exhaust pipe, which in proper condition, should have pointed downward toward the bottom of the vault, and have there mingled the steam with cold water emptied into the vault, and the employer neglected for four years to inspect the condition of the water-closet, and an employee, without contributory negligence, was seriously scalded and burned by steam from the exhaust pipe, which then pointed upward, the employer is chargeable with negligence, and is responsible in damages for the injury.
Id.—Motion for Nonsuit—Supply of Proof by Defendant—Harmless Error.—Even if a motion for nonsuit should have been granted at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the refusal to grant it is harmless error, where the defendant’s evidence supplies the requisite proof.
Garoutte, J. The appellant is a corporation engaged in conducting a factory for the manufacture of tin cans and other articles. Nora Russell, a minor, and employee, brings this action in the name of her guardian [529]ad litem for damages for personal injuries received. The jury found in her favor, and assessed the damages at the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. The corporation appeals from the judgment and order denying a new trial.
The general facts to be considered may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff, a girl of. fourteen years, was an employee of the defendant, and upon the day of the accident, being the first day of her employment, was working for the defendant at its place of business in the city of San Francisco. Upon the premises there was a certain outhouse or water-closet provided for the use of employees. In connection with its business the defendant used and employed steam power, and had constructed and maintained an exhaust steampipe which ran into said closet, and discharged steam immediately beneath the place where persons using said outhouse or water-closet were in the habit of sitting. While the plaintiff was in the act of using said closet steam and hot water came through said exhaust steampipe into said outhouse immediately beneath the person of said plaintiff, whereby she was seriously scalded and burned. The steam was conducted to this place for sanitary purposes, and such arrangement had been in use for more than four years. Cold water was also emptied into the vault of this closet by means of a pipe, and when the end of the exhaust steampipe penetrated the cold water there was no danger from the hot steam. The end of the exhaust pipe consisted of an elbow eighteen inches in length claimed by defendant to have been so placed as to extend directly downward to within fifteen or eighteen inches of the bottom of the vault. Immediately after the accident the place was examined, and it was found that the aforesaid elbow of the exhaust steampipe pointed directly upward. The foregoing facts either appeared from the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses, or were admitted by defendant’s pleading, save the position of the elbow of the exhaust pipe at the time of the accident; and its [530]position as pointing upward rather than downward at that time was shown by the evidence of the defendant.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)