Cahill v. Hilton

The accident by which the plaintiff lost an arm and seriously impaired his means of livelihood, was one which appeals strongly to, the sympathies, and naturally excites a desire to extend compensation to him for his misfortune. Courts, however; are powerless to render relief in such cases unless the consequences can be traced with certainty to the negligence of the parties charged therewith, unconnected with contributory fault on the part of the injured party.

Persons engaged in the use of machinery employed in the various manufacturing industries of the country, and usually propelled by irresistible power, are necessarily exposed to great danger, and must mainly rely for immunity from injuries therefrom, upon their own care and vigilance. It is undoubtedly the duty of the master employing servants in such establishments, to exercise all reasonable care and prudence to obviate the dangers naturally arising from the employment, but there must remain many dangerous situations which cam not be anticipated or provided for, and from which the utmost care of the employer will be insufficient to protect his servants, and especially those who are careless or inattentive in the performance of their duties. Even when the employer is held to the strictest degree of accountability, there must necessarily be cases when accidents occur that are beyond the reach of any possible prevision, and are chargeable solely to the

An examination of the evidence in this case does not, in our view, disclose any neglect on the defendants’ part, but seems to prove that the accident was occasioned by plaintiff’s want of care. The defendants were the owners of a carpet factory at Grlenham, in this State, and the plaintiff had been in their employ about four years as a general helper in the gig-room where the accident occurred. The plaintiff was the only witness of the transaction and was entirely unable to give any account of the manner of its occurrence. The courts below have sustained a recovery against the defendants solely upon the ground that they were guilty of negligence m furnishing for use in their factory, a ladder alleged to have been defective in some of its parts, and which the plaintiff was using at the time of his injury, in attempting to shift a belt upon a shaft for the purpose of relacing it. There was no necessity for relacing these belts while the machinery was in motion, and no proof that the ladder was furnished for the purpose to which plaintiff put it, or that the defendants were aware of the manner in which he intended to use it. On the contrary, the superintendent and foreman of the factory had been expressly directed by the defendants not to allow the machinery to be repaired while in motion, and they both testified that they should have prevented it if the mode of doing it by the plaintiff had been brought to their attention. The ladder was about twelve feet long and had been provided for no special purpose, but had been used some fifteen years about the factory for the ordinary uses of such a ladder. The plaintiff testified that he and his fellow-servants had been in the

The evidence of the defects in the ladder was furnished mainly by the plaintiff’s co-servants, and they were evidently aware of the difficulty of the problem their evidence was designed to elucidate, viz., to show that the defects were so apparent that the defendants were chargeable with negligence for not observing them, but that they were also so obscure that the plaintiff, who was in the frequent use of the ladder, was excusable in not seeing them. The plaintiff’s means of discovering these defects, if there were any, were quite equal to those of any of his witnesses, but the jury were permitted to find, upon such evidence, that the defendants were chargeable with negligence for not discovering and remedying them, and that the plaintiff, with superior means of observation, was ignorant of their existence.

It is difficult to see upon what principle of logic or reason such a verdict can be supported. A ladder, like a spade or hoe, is an implement of simple structure, presenting no complicated question of power, motion or construction, and intelligible in all of its parts to the dullest intellect. bTo reason can be perceived why the plaintiff, brought into daily contact with the tools used by him, as he was, should not be held chargeable, equally with the defendants, with knowledge of their imperfections. (Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N. Y. 396 .)

We do not, however, care to rest the decision of the case upon this proposition, as we are, after a careful consideration of the whole evidence, of the opinion that the ladder was not instrumental in producing the accident; and that even if it was, the mode and time of its use were not attributable to the defendants. The evidence upon which our opinion is based was undisputed, and when carefully analyzed leaves no room for doubt as to the manner of the accident, or at least that it was not occasioned by the breaking of the ladder. The gig room was mainly occupied by gigs located upon the

The belt was revolving toward him and downward as he stood on the ladder, and would naturally carry him with it in case he became entangled in it, and his hold upon the beam above became released. He admitted that he had frequently performed this service before and always in the same manner and with the same ladder, and that he knew it to be a hazardous undertaking. Another witness, who worked in the same room, testified that he heard a crash, and upon investigation found the plaintiff lying upon the floor at the foot of the ladder in front of the shaft, and unconscious. The ladder and the scantling to which it was hooked, were broken and

The inference is irresistible that the hand became entangled in the belt while he was engaged in the act of lifting it, and that the severance of his arm immediately followed, communicating the shock which produced unconsciousness. If the ladder had broken and caused him to fall, that circumstance must have preceded his unconsciousness, and he would have observed and been able to testify to the fact; but as it was he recollected all that took place up to the time of grasping the belt, but nothing after that. It is quite certain that the arm was severed from the body while he still remained upon the ladder holding to the beam above him for support, because there was no period of time after that when the force exerted upon it would not have carried the body, if undetached, along with it to the other side of the shaft. The force necessary to tear an arm from the body requires resistance as well as power, and can be accounted for in no way except upon the theory that the plaintiff held on to the beam, endeavoring, by main strength, to release his hand from the laces.

The evidence, therefore, does not bring the case within the rule requiring that personal negligence on the part of the employers must be shown in order to authorize a verdict

The rule that a plaintiff in an action for negligence is required to show affirmatively his own freedom from negligence, is quite as well established, as that he must show that it was produced by the negligence of the defendant. It is quite true that the proof of the absence of plaintiff’s negligence usually presents a question of fact, and is often to be inferred from the nature of the accident and the circumstances of the case, but this conclusion cannot legally be reached unless such circumstances are proved as legitimately and reasonably lead to such a result. Unless the court can see that such facts are proved as fairly tend to support a presumption of freedom from negligence, the question becomes one of law to be determined by it.

The proof shows that the service in question could have been safely performed while the machinery was at rest during the noon intermission, or upon request the superintendent would have suspended the power for the few minutes required to perform the work. Instead of adopting either of these methods, the plaintiff and his fellow-servant voluntarily selected a time following the noon intermission, and immediately after the machinery had been put in motion, to do the work required of him. He admits that he knew the hazard of this manner of performing the service, but he elected to do it in that way rather than adopt the precautions which would have made it entirely safe. In this we think he took the risk of the time and manner selected by himself and his co-servant.

To hold an employer liable for the consequence of an accident happening under such circumstances, would violate the plainest principles governing the relations of master and servant, and impose upon the former the consequences of the carelessness of the latter. It would substitute a rule imposing an absolute liability upon the master, instead of that just principle which inflicts upon each party the consequences of his own fault.

All concur.

Judgment reversed