Case Name: THOMAS, Appellant, v. BOSTON AND MONTANA CON. COPPER AND SILVER MINING COMPANY, Respondent
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1906-07-06
Citations: 34 Mont. 370
Docket Number: No. 2,286
Parties: THOMAS, Appellant, v. BOSTON AND MONTANA CON. COPPER AND SILVER MINING COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 370–375

Head Matter:
THOMAS, Appellant, v. BOSTON AND MONTANA CON. COPPER AND SILVER MINING COMPANY, Respondent.
(No. 2,286.)
(Submitted June 11, 1906.
Decided July 6, 1906.)
Appeal — Trial—Instructions—Requests—Necessity—Bonds.
Appeal — Instructions—Request—N eeessity.
1. Where appellant neglected to request the trial court to insert certain propositions of law alleged to have been favorable to him, in its instructions to the jury, he may not complain of their omission.
Appeal — Bonds—Jurisdiction.
2. OMter: In the absence of anything in the record to show that an appeal bond had been filed or waived in writing, the supreme court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Mines — Master and Servant — Personal Injuries — Instructions.
3. An instruction given in an action for damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff, a miner, in falling from an unattached ladder leading into a mine, — which charged the jury that if the injury arose out of the “obvious and ordinary” risks and dangers assumed by plaintiff in entering defendant’s employ, recovery could not be had, — was proper, even though defendant’s answer did not aver that the risks were ordinary ones, but where evidence had been introduced in its behalf, without objection, to support such theory and where the whole ease had been tried on this theory of the defense.
Mines — Master and Servant — Personal Injuries — Instructions.
4. An instruction submitted to the jury in a personal injury case that plaintiff, a miner, injured while descending into a mine on an unattached ladder, was bound to ascertain whether the ladder was loose or not, and that “his duty would not permit him to blindly venture upon it without investigation,” is not open to the objection that it virtually made it the duty of the employee to act as an inspector, or investigator of appliances in the mine, since it simply announced that it was his duty to use ordinary care — common sense — to see or feel where and how the ladder was before venturing upon it.
Mines — Master and Servant — Personal Injuries- — Ordinary Care — Question for Jury.
5. The question whether a miner, injured while descending into a mine on an unattached ladder, used ordinary care in failing to satisfy himself where and how the ladder was, was one for the jury to determine.
Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; Geo. M. Bourquin, Judge.
Action by William Thomas against the Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Mr. John A. Shelton, for Appellant.
Instruction No. 11 failed to state that the plaintiff had a right to rely upon the assumption that the master had discharged his duty in using reasonable care to provide reasonably safe appliances and a reasonably safe place to work. This omission was not supplied by any other instruction. (Ambrose v. Angus, 61 111. App. 304.) “The defense of assumption of risks or waiver must be specially pleaded if the employer wishes to rely thereon. Being affirmative in its character, it cannot be proved under the general denial.” (2 Labatt on Master and Servant, sec. 864. See, also, Oregon etc. By. Co. v. Tracy, 66 Fed. 931, 14 C. C. A. 199; Mayes v. Chicago etc. By. Co., 63 Iowa, 562, 14 N. W. 340, 19 N. W. 680; Wells v. Burlington etc. B. B. Co., 56 Iowa, 520, 9 N. W. 364; Nicolaus y. Chicago etc. By. Co., 90 Iowa, 85, 57 N. W. 694; McMullan v. Missouri etc. By. Co., 60 Mo. App. 231; Mace v. Boedker & Co., 127 Iowa, 721, 104 N. W. 475.)
Instruction No. 18 in effect told the jury that the plaintiff had no right to assume that the defendant had done its duty in this respect, but that the duty was upon the plaintiff to investigate and to ascertain whether or not sueh duty had been done; and that if lie failed to so investigate, be could not recover. Sucb instruction was entirely erroneous.
Tbe plaintiff himself bad said that be did not investigate. He did not know tbat tbe ladder was loose, because be bad never before been in a place where be could observe its condition. It was dark at tbe place where this ladder was. He could only observe by such light as bis candle afforded. Tbe ladder in question was about six feet in length, resting without fastening or blocks upon two pieces of lagging. Tbe top rested loosely against a support.
Tbe plaintiff was directed to descend by this ladder to a place at a greater depth in the mine. He tested tbe ladder by putting one foot upon tbe same and allowing a part of bis weight to rest upon tbe ladder; it appeared to be secure, when be brought all of bis weight on tbe ladder and it fell.
While charged with knowledge of patent defects, and with tbe usual effect of wear upon the machinery, tbe employee is never charged by bis mere duty .of using it with the further duty of inspection for latent defects. (Missouri Pacific By. Co. v. Crenshaw, 71 Tex. 340, 9 S. W. 262; Greenleaf v. Dubuque etc. By. Co., 33 Iowa, 52; Fordyce v. Edwards, 60 Ark. 438, 30 S. W. 758; Barnatt v. Schlapka, 208 111. 426, 70 N. E. 343; Bock Island Sash etc. Works v. Pohlman, 210 Jll. 133, 71 N. E. 428.)
Messrs. Forbis & Evans, Mr. J. L. Wines, and Mr. John E. Corette, for Respondent.

Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE MILBURN
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
On appeal from an order denying appellant's motion for a new trial and from the judgment. This is a personal injury case. Tbe jury found for tbe defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly.
There are four specifications of error, to-wit, tbat tbe court erred in giving each of four instructions to tbe jury. We have examined these instructions, and find tbat they are correct state ments of the law. Appellant contends that the court omitted from them certain propositions of law favorable to him. If this be so, the appellant may not complain, as he did not request the court so to charge the jury. The order and judgment must be affirmed.
Obiter: There is not anything in the record to show that an appeal bond was made or filed, or waived in writing, and it is doubtful whether we should consider the appeal at all, as without a bond made or filed, or waived as provided by law, "the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose." (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 1724.) This point, however, was not made in the brief.
Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.