The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-03-04
STARR WINS HIS SUIT.
JUDGE PRuETT AWARDS HIM A
THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Thinks His Employer Should have
Warned Him Of the Danger
He Incurred.

a
doing some work while in the employ
ment of the defendants. The suit was
dismissed as far as it related to Mr.
Carrie and was tried as relating 10 oe-
PENDANT Kreuzberger, and judgment
given against him.
Following is the text of the decision:
This is an action for S1O,ooo damases
for the injuries sustained by the PLAIN
tiff by reason Of the collapse anu IAN
of a brick wall upon which he was a.
work on January 10, 1897, under the
employ of defendant Kreuzberger
The plaintiff AYERS that the defendant
was aware of the dangerous condltion
of the WALL and that ne hlnsei was
not aware thereof.
This it may be remarked, is supstan-
tally the only question of fact LETT Iof
the court to determine. The evidence
is very singularly free from conflict
upon all the main points OF the cast
save possibly as to the degree OF knoWl-
edge possessed by the plaintlH as 10 lhe
dangerous character of the wall
The evidence is conclusive that the
wall which fell was only eight inches
in thickness, and that the methoo Oh
cutting into it detailed by the witnesses
was a dangerous one.
It appears entirely certain, also, that
the plaintiff knew in fact that the
eight-inch wall was there, but he con-
tends that he did not know that II came
as low down as it did, and that he re
lied upon the overseers OF the plalhti.l
to see that they did not get high enougn
to cut into it.
The eight-inch wall was not taken
,,Of
been the intention of the defendant 10
take il down at all. In this he was
not treating his employer fairly, as ms
contract and the specifications calIeo
for the reduction of this wall. The at
tention of defendant was called to the
omission to take the wall down by the
architect. Mayo.
The testimony of the witness Cor
saw tends to show that defendant
Kreuzberger pointed out to the work
men the place at which he desired the
course of brick cut out of the eight
inch wall. He also testifies that Starr
said to defendant: Are you not getting
a little high?"
The witness Day corroborates Cor
saw as TO the fact that defendant point
ed out the place for the course TO be
cut out. Charles Hanson, who, how
ever. is an interested party, testifies &c
the same effect W. II. Lynch testlheS
to the same facts Thomas Jackson
testifes that he told defendant to take
the wall down. and that Mayo had tolc
him to remind defendant OF 1t. De-
PENDANT neyert he1ess directed jackson
not to take it down.
For the defense. J. E. Kerr testifies
that he actually warned the plalnflfl
Of his danger, and that plaintiff replied
that he knew his business, and thai
thereupon he Kern removed his team
from what he believed to be danger
Gus position.
/ do not think that defendant placed
the plaintiff in charge of the work.
Robert Goods testifes that Kerr tolc
him that it was a shame that the mcr
got hurt. and that the man who pu'
them there ought to be hung. This, i
true. tends to contradict Kerr's tesh'
mony that he warned the plaintiff Of
the danger.
Under this state of testimony tht
court holds that the defendant wher
he sent the plaintiff to work at ms
point at which the accident happened
knew that it was dangerous; that MS
purpose in not taking down the wal
was to obtain an unfair advantage oTel
his employer; that he had been warned
TO take the wall down, and had pur
posely refrained from so doing, anf
that he ought to have known. when h
pointed out the place for the last cours'
that it was placing his men in grave
peril Of their lives.
1t Is true that one who voluntaril!
continues work in a dangerous plac'
after knowledge or the means OF knowl
edge of the danger takes all the risk
incident to his employment; but l ap
prehend that this doctrine cannot b'
carried so far as to excuse an ernployc
when his attention is drawn to pos
sible danger. and he IN effect assure
his workman that no danger exists
This is practically what took place IL
the case now before the court.
The query by the plaintiff to the dc
PENDANT as to whether or not he wa.
getting too high was effectually me
by the declaration of the plaintiff il
reply thereto, as shown in the testi
mony
The plaintiff suspected a danger. blu
did not know II, and did know tina
the defendant was able to acquaint hin
with the existence of the danger if
relying upon the direction Of his EN-
ployer after the attention of the latte
had been called TO a possible danger.
I think that even If the attention O
the plaintiff was drawn 10 the DANCE
by Mr. Kerr, the plaintiff was still
justified in continuing work. under IN
very reasonable assumption that tn
defendant, If any danger really existed
would have stated it 10 plaintiff whe
the latter asked him II they were no
getting little too high.
As TO the injuries, I am constraine
to believe that the plaintiff has yer
greatly nagnified them. The case ap
pears TO differ but slightly from an
ordinary case Of fracture Of a leg, an
with the accompanying pain and SUI
fering.
There is no element of malice or II
territorial treSpass on the part Of tn
defendant. and l see no just reason 70
imposing upon him q heavy judgmer
for damages.
Let the plaintiff prepare finding
awarding TO him damages in the SUI
Of $1.000 and costs.
Let such findings be submitted to III
attorneys for the defendant within fly
days from notice Of this opinion, an
let defendant within five days next er
suing serve and submit amendments.
MAINE PRAIRIE GEESE.
They VIII Fall Victims to Explo
sions OF Billy Hamilton's Gun.