Court Opinion

ID: 9834206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:23:38.737931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.393799
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Both the appellant and the appellee have presented motions for rehearing in this case; the former asking that judgment be here rendered in its favor, and the latter assailing the correctness of what he conceives to be our conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to show liability. In view of the fact that the ease is to be reversed and remanded for another trial, it is perhaps proper that our rulings upon the errors discussed should be more specifically stated. Upon more mature consideration, we have reached the conclusion that it should not be held, as a matter of law, on the facts disclosed by the record, that the appellant is not responsible for Burnes’ injuries.
[2] It appears from the evidence that the meal cloths referred to in the testimony were designed and used for the purpose of receiving and conveying deposits of oil meal from the cooker to the press, and to hold the meal while the oil was being extracted therefrom. The heavy pressure to which these cloths were subjected caused them to adhere closely to the meal cake, and in the course of their removal were frequently torn and raveled. Their deterioration was rapid. Some cloths would not last more than a day; while others might be used for several days. It is true these cloths were simple devices, and to one unskilled in the business it may not be apparent that any particular hazard would likely attend their use by the “former” after they became worn and raveled at the ends. This, however, was a question of fact to be determined by the jury, and we cannot say that the testimony was not sufficient to justify the conclusion that they did become dangerous when in that condition.
[3] The duty of the master to exercise ordinary care to furnish his employés with reasonably safe instrumentalities and appliances is the same, whether these be meal cloths or the more complex mechanical imple*1085ments used in the master’s work. The vigilance demanded must in all cases be commensurate with the hazards likely to he encountered in the ordinary course of employment. Burnes had as much right to demand at the hands of the appellant the exercise of a proper degree of care in supplying him with safe meal cloths upon this occasion, as any other employe in another department of the service had to demand safe appliances with which to perform his duties. It is insisted that this duty of the appellant as the master was discharged when a sufficient supply of meal cloths in good condition were iilaced at the disposal of that group of employes to which Burnes belonged, from which to replenish their stock as this became depleted by deterioration. We were at first inclined to concur in that' view, but upon more mature consideration have reached a different conclusion. It will be observed that the deterioration of these cloths from use does not occur while in the hands of the “former,” the party who in this instance was injured, but in the press and in the process of removing them from the oil» cakes, after having been taken from the press. They were then placed upon a shelf, to be again used by the “former.” At what stages of their use, and how often, the master should be required to inspect the appliances with which his servants are required to work must depend upon the conditions and hazards attending each particular instance, and will be determined by what an ordinarily prudent employer would do under similar circumstances in looking after the safety of his employes.
[4] The testimony in this case does not make it clear as to just what duty had been imposed by the master upon the cake skinner, who placed the cloths upon the shelf for use by Burnes. The jury might have inferred from the testimony that the skinner was simply to inspect the cloths with a view to ascertaining their fitness for further use in holding meal, and without reference to their safety as mechanical appliances. This duty is not one which would involve the exercise of any of the functions peculiar to the master, and might be delegated. Negligence in the discharge of that duty would be that of a fellow servant, and an injury resulting therefrom would be one of the risks assumed by the “former.” On the contrary, if the cake skinner was charged with the duty of looking after the safety of the cloths as appliances to be used, as well as their fitness for holding meal, then he was in one respect the personal representative of the master, and his neglect of that duty would be imputed to his employer.
[5] The court instructed the jury that, if they found from the evidence “that the defendant, its agents, or servants, furnished a defective and unsafe meal cloth to plaintiff for his immediate use,” etc., this would not be among the risks which he assumed. This was assuming that the skinner who placed the cloth upon the shelf for use by Burnes was charged with the duty of inspecting the cloths with reference to their safety for use as appliances for labor, as well as their fitness for holding meal. That was an issue of fact upon which the jury should have been permitted to pass. But it does not follow frorn this that the appellant should be exonerated, because it had not imposed that duty upon the skinner or some other employé. It may have been guilty of culpable negligence in failing to provide for this service to be done at proper intervals during the progress of the work. It was the province of the jury to say whether or not the particular service was attended with such hazards as required the master, in order to meet the demands of prudence, to provide some system or means of inspection, with a view of keeping the appliances in a safe condition.
The motion of the appellant to reverse and render judgment in its favor is overruled; also that of the appellee asking that the former judgment rendered be set aside, and the case affirmed. The judgment will stand as originally rendered, but the opinion is modified as indicated by what is here said.